IS THIS HOW I WILL BE TREATED? REDUCING UNCERTAINTY ...

IS THIS HOW I WILL BE TREATED? REDUCINGUNCERTAINTY THROUGH RECRUITMENT INTERACTIONS

H. JACK WALKERAuburn University

TALYA N. BAUERPortland State University

MICHAEL S. COLETexas Christian University

JEREMY B. BERNERTHLouisiana State University

HUBERT S. FEILDAuburn University

JEREMY C. SHORTUniversity of Oklahoma

While a great deal of research has investigated strategies for increasing job seekers’initial attraction to organizations, far less is known about how job seekers respond torecruitment activities after application submission. We draw from signaling, uncer-tainty reduction, and uncertainty management theories to develop a conceptual modelof the relationship between recruitment interactions (contact episodes) after applica-tion submission and organizational attraction. We test this model in three independentstudies with data collected at multiple time periods. Study 1 employed a time-laggedresearch design with actual job seekers. Findings showed that justice perceptionsassociated with recruitment interactions influence attraction to an organization indi-rectly and directly via positive relational certainty (i.e., reduced uncertainty regardinghow organizational relations might be upon entering the organization). Study 2 used acontrolled experimental design to provide additional evidence of the relational cer-tainty mechanism through which justice signals influence attraction. Finally, Study 3incorporated a longitudinal (repeated-measures) design to examine reactions to re-cruitment interactions over ten weeks. Results indicated that the relationship betweenjustice signals and organizational attraction via positive relational certainty is dy-namic, suggesting that organizations should carefully manage their communicationsthroughout the recruitment process.

Recruitment is an essential function for organi-zations, as “human capital” is a key component ofan organization’s success and stock valuation(Huselid, Jackson, & Schuler, 1997). Despite theimportance of human resource recruitment in ac-quiring and maintaining a key organizational re-

source, this function poses ongoing challenges fororganizations (Rynes & Cable, 2003). Of 628 staffingprofessionals surveyed in 2006, 73 percent re-ported increased recruiting competition hinderedefforts to attract top talent in the marketplace (How-ard, Erker, & Bruce, 2006). Such challenges remaineven in times of relatively high unemployment(Ployhart, 2006), and organizations that fail to makerecruitment a priority fare poorly in the “war fortalent” (Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, &Jones, 2005). In contrast, firms that manage this

The authors thank Wendy Boswell, Brian Dineen, Ber-rin Erdogan, Lauren Simon, Pamela Tierney, and DonaldTruxillo for their comments and suggestions on earlierversions of this work.

1325

� Academy of Management Journal2013, Vol. 56, No. 5, 1325–1347.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0196

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s expresswritten permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

task effectively enable a potential competitive ad-vantage because human capital influences organi-zational performance (Hitt, Bierman, Shimizu, &Kochhar, 2001; Ployhart, 2011).

Given the documented importance of recruit-ment to long-term organizational survival, it is notsurprising that a growing body of research focuseson identifying strategies to improve recruitmentsuccess (see Breaugh [2008] and Ployhart [2006] forreviews). Specifically, this stream of research ex-amines ways organizations can design activities tobetter identify and attract potential employees. Forexample, organizations can improve job seekers’initial organizational perceptions by consideringfactors such as job advertisement content (High-house, Beadle, Gallo, & Miller, 1998; Walker, Feild,Giles, & Bernerth, 2008), advertised organizationaldiversity policies (Williams & Bauer, 1994), andrecruitment website design (Allen, Mahto, &Otondo, 2007; Walker, Feild, Giles, Armenakis, &Bernerth, 2009).

While these advancements provide valuable in-sight regarding recruitment, several important the-oretical and methodological gaps in the literaturelimit understanding of key phases and mechanismsduring the recruitment process. For example,scholars have noted that recruitment research hashad relatively weak theoretical grounding and thatthe theory most often used to explain recruitmentphenomena—signaling theory (Spence, 1974)—is not currently well-defined or understood in thecontext of recruitment research (Breaugh & Starke,2000; Ehrhart & Ziegert, 2005; Highhouse, Thorn-bury, & Little, 2007). Furthermore, the vast majorityof studies have focused on job seekers’ reactions torecruitment activities before application submis-sion (Dineen & Soltis, 2010). Focusing entirely onorganizational efforts to improve job seekers’ initialperceptions is irrelevant if organizations are unableto maintain the positive attitudes that led job seek-ers to pursue employment with them in the firstplace (Stevens & Beach, 1996). For example, nega-tive changes in organizational attractiveness duringrecruitment can result in the loss of qualifiedapplicants who withdraw from the recruitmentprocess before receiving an offer (Ryan, Sacco,McFarland, & Kriska, 2000; Schmit & Ryan, 1997).Finally, recruitment research has primarily incorpo-rated between-persons research designs (Breaugh &Starke, 2000). Doing so has prevented scholars fromdeveloping dynamic models of recruitment phe-nomenon to explain why and how recruitment ac-tivities influence job seekers’ reactions over time

(cf. Steel, 2002; Wanberg, Zhu, Kanfer, & Zhang,2012).

We designed the current research to address thesegaps. Specifically, we augmented recruitment’s ex-isting theoretical underpinnings (i.e., signaling the-ory) by drawing upon theories of uncertainty re-duction (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) and uncertaintymanagement (Lind, 2001; Lind & van den Bos,2002; van den Bos & Lind, 2002) to make predic-tions regarding job seekers’ reactions to contactepisodes (e.g., e-mails and telephone calls) withrecruiting organizations after application submis-sion. We tested our hypotheses in three separatebut complementary studies. Studies 1 and 2 em-ployed time-lagged designs, while Study 3 tested adynamic, longitudinal model of recruitment inwhich we studied preliminary recruitment interac-tions over ten weeks. To our knowledge, this is thefirst set of studies to (a) examine uncertainty reduc-tion as a mediating mechanism in an explicit andisolated manner and (b) consider the dynamic natureof job seekers’ reactions to multiple written and ver-bal interactions with organizational representativesafter employment application submission.

THEORIES OF UNCERTAINTY REDUCTIONAND MANAGEMENT

Our conceptual approach builds on considerableresearch supporting the view that uncertainty is amotivational antecedent that drives behavior(Festinger, 1954; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Hogg, 2007).Berger and Calabrese (1975) developed uncertaintyreduction theory (URT) to explain the processesassociated with strangers attempting to reduce un-certainty associated with meeting one another forthe first time. According to this theoretical perspec-tive, individuals reduce uncertainty regardingwhere they stand when they encounter a new rela-tionship by progressing through three developmen-tal phases: entry, personal, and exit. The entryphase is characterized by information seeking re-lated to demographic characteristics such as age,race, gender, or economic status. As strangers prog-ress to the personal phase, they seek out informa-tion that is not readily observable, such as a newperson’s values, beliefs, and attitudes. Lastly, indi-viduals negotiate plans for future interactions dur-ing the exit phase. If both strangers like one an-other, the relationship typically continues, whereasdislike from one party typically results in relation-ship termination (Berger & Calabrese, 1975).

1326 OctoberAcademy of Management Journal

The uncertainty reduction process describedabove is relevant to our research in as much as jobseekers are attempting, in essence, to establish anew employment relationship. This view derivesfrom the considerable overlap between the threestages of interpersonal relationship developmentand the three stages posited to comprise the recruit-ment process: generation, maintenance, and jobchoice (Barber, 1998; Breaugh & Starke, 2000). Fig-ure 1 indicates the generation phase of recruitment(when applications are sought) is similar to the entryphase of interpersonal development because jobseekers base their evaluations of recruiting organi-zations mainly on observable information the or-ganizations present (i.e., online information, re-cruitment materials, etc.). The maintenance phase,which focuses on maintaining applicant interest,begins after application submission and corre-sponds to the personal phase of uncertainty reduc-tion because job seekers have more interaction withan organization’s representatives. Therefore, theyare able to assess the organization on characteris-tics beyond what they infer from recruitment ma-terials. Lastly, the job choice phase occurs after ajob offer and is similar to the exit phase of inter-personal development because applicants make de-cisions regarding the future of the relationship be-tween themselves and the recruiting organizations.

One category of uncertainty that is likely to beparticularly unsettling for job seekers and difficultto assess during recruitment is the type of organi-zational relations they might encounter after organ-izational entry. Specifically, job seekers want toensure that employee relations are positive andresult in fair procedures and outcomes (Lind, 2001;van den Bos, Lind, & Wilke, 2001). According totheories of uncertainty management, job seekerscan reduce this uncertainty by using any justice-relevant information (i.e., treatment received) toassess the trustworthiness of recruiting organiza-tions (Lind & van den Bos, 2002; van den Bos &Lind, 2002). These assessments lead to the forma-tion of a fairness heuristic that guides subsequentattitudes and behaviors (van den Bos, Wilke, &Lind, 1998). We suspect that job seekers’ fairnessheuristic is still malleable during the early stages ofrecruitment, so that individuals use it until a“phase-shifting event” causes them to revise theirfairness perceptions. Stated another way, job seek-ers use evaluations of organizations’ justice to de-cide if they will have good relations as members ofrecruiting organizations and, by extension, fair treat-ment received during recruitment influences theircertainty that relations will be positive in the future(Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, & Rich, 2012).

FIGURE 1Phases of Recruitment and Relationship Development

Generation

Entry

Recruitment Materials(e.g., websites, brochures, etc.)

Maintenance Job Choice

Personal Exit

Interactions with RecruitingOrganizations

Site Visits

RecruitmentPhases

RelationshipDevelopment

Phases

Sources ofOrganizationalInformation

JobOffer

ApplicationDecision

Job Seekers’ Organizational Uncertainty

Job Seekers’ Organizational Certainty

2013 1327Walker, Bauer, Cole, Bernerth, Feild, and Short

We draw from previous theoretical assertions re-garding the role of justice during recruitment andselection (e.g., Gilliland, 1993) to argue that thesejustice evaluations are especially important duringthe maintenance phase of recruitment, because jobseekers have the opportunity to reduce uncertaintyin ways other than viewing information presentedin formal recruitment materials. Specifically, jus-tice evaluations of written and verbal interactionswith recruiting organizations provide the means fordoing so (Boswell, Roehling, LePine, & Moynihan,2003). In our theoretical conceptualization, weview job seekers’ perceptions of justice associatedwith recruitment interactions as salient signals (cf.Colquitt & Rodell, 2011; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994;Rynes, 1991; Turban & Greening, 1997) and predictthat these justice signals, measured in the form oflevels of interpersonal and informational justice,will influence job seekers’ relational certainty. Wedefine relational certainty as the degree to whichjob seekers believe they can predict the type ofrelationships they will have as employees after or-ganizational entry. In turn, we theorize that jobseeker relational certainty is a mediating mecha-nism through which justice signals relate to or-ganizational attraction. To the degree that justicesignals are seen as positive, organizational attrac-

tion will be higher (due to increased positiverelational certainty), and to the degree that theyare perceived as negative, organizational attrac-tion will be lower (due to reduced positive rela-tional certainty). As individuals progress throughthe stages of recruitment and relationship devel-opment, their uncertainty about recruiting organ-izations is affected, because they interpret andperceive signals as representative of unknown joband organizational characteristics (Connelly,Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011).

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Figure 2 depicts our conceptual model of jobseekers’ reactions to recruitment interactions. Thismodel focuses on the maintenance phase of recruit-ment and the personal phase of relationship devel-opment, which occur after the submission of a jobapplication. At this stage of recruitment, interac-tions with recruiting organizations are an impor-tant source of organizational information. Althoughjob seekers may have interacted with organization-al representatives during the generation phase (e.g.,career fairs, company information sessions), thefrequency and intensity of these interactions islikely to increase once job seekers have submitted a

FIGURE 2Maintenance Phase of Recruitment

Contact Episode 1

Interpersonal Justice

Informational Justice

Positive Relational Certainty Organizational Attraction

Perceived Signal Signaling Outcome Uncertainty Reduction Outcome

(Study 1 and Study 2)

Dynamic Model(Study 3 Tests Changesacross Contact Episodes

for Ten Weeks)

Contact Episode ... Contact Episode 2


job application. We argue that it is not only theinformation communicated during these interac-tions that reduces job seekers’ organizational un-certainty, but also the way organizational represen-tatives treat job seekers. As depicted in ourconceptual model, we expect the first interactionbetween job seekers and recruiting organizations tobe unique and to influence relational certainty.That is, positively evaluated interactions will in-crease job seekers’ positive relational certainty, butnegatively evaluated interactions will decreasetheir certainty. This view is consistent with priorresearch that has theorized justice can signal anindividual’s value in societal groups (Tyler, 1989)and organizations (Colquitt & Rodell, 2011). Study1 and Study 2 test these predictions.

Figure 2 also depicts the multiple recruitmentinteractions likely to occur during the maintenancephase, reflecting the dynamic aspects of our con-ceptual model. This dynamic model acknowledgesthat no interaction between job seekers and recruit-ing organizations occurs in isolation. Rather, anearlier interaction (e.g., contact episode 1) providesa reference point for evaluating treatment at a latertime (e.g., contact episode 2) and so on. Thus, wedo not expect job seekers to simply sum or averagetheir reactions to treatment received from organiza-tions. Instead, changes in the signals sent to jobseekers through interactions with recruiting organ-izations should influence changes in the outcomesof these signaling and uncertainty reduction pro-cesses. Our reasoning suggests that the direction ofjustice change is important in understanding howand why positive relational certainty and organiza-tional attraction may systematically vary in magni-tude and direction over time. For example, anupward change in perceived justice would be asso-ciated with a more positive increase in positiverelational certainty. In turn, an upward change inpositive relational certainty would likely be asso-ciated with a corresponding upward change in or-ganizational attraction. We make specific predic-tions regarding these dynamic relationships inStudy 3.

STUDY 1: A MODEL OF UNCERTAINTYREDUCTION IN RECRUITING

During recruitment interactions with organization-al representatives, job seekers are likely to evaluateinterpersonal and informational justice (Ambrose &Schminke, 2003; Bies, 2005; Scott, Colquitt, & Zapata-Phelan, 2007) because they are searching for signals

with which to assess the possibility of exploitation bypotential employers (Lind, 2001). Such signaling cuesare likely perceived as indicative of the type of rela-tionships that exist in organizations. Therefore, jus-tice assessments (whether positive or negative) in-form job seekers as to whether or not they will havegood relationships as organization members (cf.Bauer, Maertz, Dolen, & Campion, 1998; Boswell etal., 2003). Early contact episodes during the mainte-nance phase are likely to relate to the level of rela-tional certainty job seekers feel. This view is consis-tent with justice researchers’ suggestions thatemployees use treatment from supervisors to gaugetheir standing in organizations (Lind, Greenberg,Scott, & Welchans, 2000; Tyler, 1989). As such, weexpect this signaling process to influence job seekers’certainty about the relationships they can expect to beinvolved in as organization members. Positive evalu-ations of treatment received from organizations (i.e.,high interpersonal and informational justice) shouldpositively relate to job seekers’ belief that they willhave good organizational relationships (i.e., positiverelational certainty).

Hypothesis 1. (a) Interpersonal justice and (b)informational justice positively relate to posi-tive relational certainty.

As Aiman-Smith, Bauer, and Cable noted, “organ-izational attraction is an attitude or expressed generalpositive affect toward an organization, toward view-ing the organization as a desirable entity with whichto initiate some relationship” (2001: 221). In this vein,uncertainty reduction theory also makes importantpredictions regarding the relationship between un-certainty reduction and liking (i.e., organizational at-traction). Specifically, liking is proposed to increaseas uncertainty decreases because individuals arebetter able to predict others’ behavior (Berger &Calabrese, 1975). Empirical findings in the commu-nications literature generally support these predic-tions (see Kellermann and Reynolds [1990] for a re-view). For example, Gudykunst (1985) argued thatcultural uncertainty explains individuals’ ten-dency to be more attracted to their own rather thananother culture. However, it is important to noteconditions in which uncertainty reduction does notnecessarily enhance liking. Sunnafrank (1990) ar-gued that the relationship between uncertainty re-duction and liking is dependent on the type ofinformation obtained. That is, uncertainty reduc-tion resulting from positive information will in-crease liking, but uncertainty reduction resultingfrom negative information will decrease attraction.


In a recruitment context, it seems reasonable toassume that when job seekers’ positive relationalcertainty increases, so will their attraction to re-cruiting organizations. This is because a reductionin a subjective experience of uncertainty tends tobe associated with a decrease in anxiety and anincrease in emotional involvement (Berger & Cala-brese, 1975). Moreover, when job seekers’ anxietyabout future treatment is low, URT holds that theywill be certain of their abilities to predict potentialemployers’ behavior. Therefore, as positive rela-tional certainty increases, organizational attractionshould also increase.

Hypothesis 2. Positive relational certainty pos-itively relates to organizational attraction.

Previous research has consistently found relation-ships between organizational justice perceptions andimportant outcomes (see Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson,Porter, and Ng [2001] for a meta-analytic review),including outcomes related to the recruitmentprocess (e.g., applicant withdrawal, satisfactionwith a selection process, organizational attraction[Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004]). In the contextof recruitment interactions, we propose that reduc-tion in uncertainty regarding job seekers’ assess-ment of expected relationships in organizationsthey interact with is a mechanism responsible forthe relationship between interpersonal and infor-mational justice and organizational attractiveness.

While the initial attractiveness perceptions thatled job seekers to submit an application might bebased on information gathered from recruitmentmaterials, it is important to note that job seekersoften question the authenticity of these organization-ally controlled information sources (Highhouse,Hoffman, Greve, & Collins, 2002). Thus, they enterthe maintenance phase of recruiting with uncer-tainty. The process of evaluating treatment re-ceived should reduce anxiety associated with un-certainty regarding expected relations (Lind & vanden Bos, 2002; van den Bos & Lind, 2002) andsignal whether or not these relationships will bepositive or negative. Therefore, high levels of inter-personal and informational justice will positivelyrelate to organizational attraction indirectly throughits effect on positive relational certainty.

Hypothesis 3. Positive relational certainty me-diates the positive relationship between (a) in-terpersonal and (b) informational justice andorganizational attraction.

STUDY 1 METHODS

Participants

We recruited Study 1 participants from upper-level undergraduate management courses at twouniversities in the southeastern United States. Weidentified participants actively searching for em-ployment upon graduation who reported intentionsto use online job applications. We included thisrequirement to control for any possible effects re-sulting from recruitment method. Course instruc-tors offered extra course credit for participation,and we entered participating job seekers who com-pleted all three portions of the study in a randomdrawing for restaurant gift certificates. Out of 233students who reported that they were currentlylooking for work, 164 (70%) completed the time 1survey. Of these, 95 percent (155) completed thetime 2 survey, and 90 percent (147) provided com-plete data in all three data collection efforts ofStudy 1. We removed 19 participants from ouranalyses because they indicated that they had beenrejected by the organization and were no longer inthe maintenance phase of recruitment. The remain-ing sample used for analyses (n � 128) had 63percent men and a mean age of 22.16 (s.d. � 3.49).In addition, 79 percent of sample members identi-fied themselves as white, 13 percent, as African-American, 4 percent, as Latin-American, 3 percent,as Asian-American, and 1 percent, as “other.” Re-sponse-nonresponse comparison revealed no dif-ferences in gender or race among those that com-pleted all three data collection surveys and thosethat only completed the time 1 survey.

Design and Procedure

We gave job seekers agreeing to participate inStudy 1 a packet containing several study-relatedmaterials (time 1). The first page contained an in-struction sheet on which we asked participants tochoose one organization they were considering foremployment but had not applied to yet, and thenapply to that organization following the company’sonline application procedures. The second pagewas a short questionnaire used to collect severaldemographic items, and initial perceptions of or-ganizational attraction (used as a control variable).

One week after time 1 data collection, courseinstructors provided participating job seekers witha second survey packet (time 2). In this packet, weasked job seekers to indicate if they had corre-sponded with the organizations that they applied to


during time 1 data collection. All reported that theyhad corresponded with their organizations via ei-ther phone call or e-mail since submitting applica-tion materials the week before. Next, job seekersanswered a series of questions designed to measureperceptions of interpersonal justice and informa-tional justice associated with this interaction.

One week after the time 2 data collection, partic-ipants received a final, time 3, survey packet. Theyprovided responses to questions designed to mea-sure their positive relational certainty, the out-comes of their initial applications, and their per-ceptions of organizational attractiveness.

Measures

Organizational attractiveness. We measured or-ganizational attractiveness during times 1 (used asa control variable in our analyses) and 3 of Study 1with Highhouse, Lievens, and Sinar’s (2003) five-item general attractiveness measure. A sample itemfrom the scale is, “For me, this company would bea great place to work.” (1, “strongly disagree,” to 5,“strongly agree”; � � 86, time 1; .79, time 3).

Interpersonal justice perceptions. During time2, we assessed interpersonal justice perceptions us-ing four items adapted from Colquitt (2001). Anexample item from this measure (1, “strongly dis-agree,” to 5, “strongly agree”; �: � .88) is, “Theorganization has treated you in a polite manner.”

Informational justice perceptions. We assessedinformational justice perceptions at time 2 using fiveitems adapted from Colquitt (2001). An example itemfrom this measure (1, “strongly disagree,” to 5,“strongly agree”; � � .79) is, “The organization hasbeen candid in their communications with you.”

Positive relational certainty. We measured jobseekers’ positive relational certainty at time 3 withthree items adapted from Truxillo and Bauer(1999). Participants indicated the degree to whichthey felt confident each statement applied to theirexpected relations as an employee (1, “not veryconfident,” to 5, “very confident”; (� � .88). Theitems used for this measure were, “I will have goodrelations with management at this organization,”“In general, I will have few employee complaints atthis organization,” and “In general, I will have fewemployee grievances at this organization.”

Application status. We asked job seekers to in-dicate (time 3 data collection) the status of their jobapplications. We coded responses as either 0, “stillwaiting to hear from the organization” (n � 97,76%), or 1, “formally invited to continue in the

recruitment process” (n � 31, 24%; phone inter-view invitations, face-to-face interview invitations,and company visit invitations are examples of re-sponses coded 1). We used these responses in ourdata analyses to control for general positive or neg-ative reactions toward particular organizations re-sulting from application status (cf. Ryan & Ploy-hart, 2000).

STUDY 1 RESULTS

Data Analyses

We tested Study 1 hypotheses by examining amediation model in which the effects of interper-sonal justice and informational justice on organiza-tional attraction are transmitted through positiverelational certainty. To avoid conceptual and math-ematical limitations when testing for mediation, weemployed statistical methods and SPSS syntax pre-sented in Preacher and Hayes (2008). Confidenceintervals for the population value of the unstan-dardized indirect effect (ab) were derived usingbias- corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrappingmethods. Through application of bootstrapped con-fidence intervals, it is possible to avoid powerproblems associated with nonnormal sampling dis-tributions that arise when computing products ofcoefficient tests (e.g., Sobel’s mediation test) forintervening variable effects (MacKinnon, Lock-wood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002).

Tests of Study 1 Hypotheses

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealedthat our proposed four-factor model fit the datawell (�2[113] � 145.06, RMSEA � .05, SRMR � .07,NFI � .94, CFI � .99). Comparison of this modelwith alternative models did not reveal a better fitfor our data. Table 1 reports descriptive statistics,coefficient alphas, and correlations among Study 1variables. Summarizing Hypotheses 1–3, we ex-pected that positive relational certainty would me-diate the positive relationships between interper-sonal justice and informational justice andorganizational attraction. As shown in Table 2,both interpersonal justice (b � .46, p � .01) andinformational justice (b � .44, p � .01) positivelyrelated to positive relational certainty—supportingboth parts of Hypothesis 1 (a and b). In addition, inline with Hypothesis 2, we found a relationshipbetween positive relational certainty and organiza-tional attraction when controlling for interpersonal


and informational justice (b � .21, p � .01). Lastly,interpersonal justice had no effect on organization-al attraction in analyses controlling for positiverelational certainty (b � .06, n.s.), suggesting a pat-tern consistent with full mediation. Informationaljustice correlated with organizational attractionwhen we controlled for positive relational certainty(b � .14, p � .05), indicating a pattern consistentwith partial mediation. As shown in Table 3, boot-strapped 95% confidence intervals (bias-correctedand accelerated) likewise demonstrated that bothindirect effects (ab � .10 and ab � .09) were sig-nificant, in that the confidence intervals around theindirect effects did not contain zero. These resultsprovided support for Hypothesis 3, part a, andmixed evidence for Hypothesis 3, part b.

STUDY 1 DISCUSSION

Results of Study 1 suggest that perceptions ofinterpersonal and informational justice associatedwith interactions between job seekers and recruit-ing organizations can influence job seekers’ organ-izational attraction. That is, after controlling forinitial levels of organizational attractiveness andapplication status, interpersonal justice contrib-uted to organizational attractiveness indirectlythrough its effects on positive relational certainty.Furthermore, informational justice signals contrib-uted to perceptions of organizational attraction di-rectly and indirectly through its effects on positiverelational certainty. These results are consistentwith our conceptual model suggesting that fairness

TABLE 1Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations among Variablesa

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Organizational attractiveness, time 1 3.82 0.75 (.86)2. Application statusb .24 0.43 .173. Positive relational certainty 2.38 1.07 .25** .04 (.88)4. Informational justice perceptions 3.15 0.64 .22* .17 .45** (.79)5. Interpersonal justice perceptions 3.27 0.98 .24** .17 .55** .42** (.87)6. Organizational attractiveness, time 3 3.26 0.61 .49** .31** .58** .46** .46** (.79)

a n � 128 (job seekers). Parentheses contain coefficient alphas for measures used in the study. All tests are two-tailed. Organizationalattractiveness, time 3, was assessed approximately two weeks after organizational attractiveness, time 1.

b 0 � “still waiting to hear from the organization”; 1 � “formally invited to continue in the recruitment process.”* p � .05

** p � .01

TABLE 2Study 1: Summary of Regression Resultsa

Predictor

Positive Relational Certainty Organizational Attractiveness

�R2 b s.e. �R2 b s.e.

1. Initial organizational attraction .16 .11 .25** .052. Application status �.23 .18 .29** .09After step 1 .06 .30**3. Interpersonal justice .46** .09 .06 .054. Informational justice .44** .13 .14* .06After step 2 .31** .16**5. Positive relational certainty .21** .04After step 3 .09**

Overall F 18.6** 5.0**Overall R2 .38 .54Adjusted R2 .36 .52

a n � 128 (job seekers). Unstandardized regression coefficients (b’s) are shown. Final model results are reported.* p � .05

** p � .01


in the treatment received after submitting an em-ployment application is a signaling cue that re-duces uncertainty regarding the type of organiza-tional relations job seekers expect as employees.Specifically, positively evaluated contact episodesincreased positive relational certainty, but nega-tively evaluated interactions decreased positive re-lational certainty. In turn, increased positive rela-tional certainty correlated with organizationalattraction.

Although Study 1 provides insights into the roleof fairness signals during recruitment on job seek-ers’ organizational attitudes, we acknowledge sev-eral potential limitations. First, more tightly con-trolled research would help us isolate, moreprecisely, the nature of the uncertainty reductionmediating mechanism. Because we obtained ourresults from actual job seekers going through a re-cruitment process, extraneous variables or situa-tional factors omitted from our conceptual modelmight have influenced our results. Second, inStudy 1 we focused on the first contact between jobseekers and recruiting organizations after job appli-cation submission. Because our research designdid not account for the possibility that job seekersmay have had more than one interaction with or-ganizations, our findings may not generalize to thelarger recruitment process as it unfolds over time.

To address these potential limitations and buildupon Study 1 findings, we designed two additionalstudies. Study 2 experimentally examines the un-certainty reduction mediating mechanism pro-posed as responsible for the observed relationships(Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005). In Study 3, we testa dynamic mediation model that considers jobseekers’ reactions to their repeated interactionswith recruiting organizations over a ten-week pe-riod. This latter investigation allowed us to embedjob seekers’ reactions in a temporal context.

STUDY 2: ISOLATING AND TESTING THEUNCERTAINTY REDUCTION MECHANISM

While Study 1 results were generally consistentwith our predictions, given the importance of ourproposed mediating mechanism for the mainte-nance phase of recruitment, we sought to replicateour Study 1 findings experimentally to further as-sess the generalizability of our hypotheses. Schol-ars have argued that carefully designed experi-ments can provide compelling evidence of causalrelationships and underlying psychological pro-cesses (e.g., Highhouse, 2009; Spencer et al., 2005).With this in mind, we employed a moderation-of-process design following Spencer et al. that involvedcreating an experimental condition in which the ini-tial contact between job seekers and recruiting or-ganization was not a signaling cue that reduceduncertainty about the type of relationships that ex-ist in organizations. Specifically, we created an ex-perimental condition in which randomly assignedparticipants were exposed to information about ahypothetical organization’s superior employee re-lations practices before they had any exchange(contact episode) with the organization, while oth-ers did not receive any information related to em-ployee relations practices. We reasoned that indi-viduals exposed to richer employer relationsinformation would have greater positive relationalcertainty. Therefore, evidence for the uncertaintyreduction mediating mechanism would exist if therelationship between fairness cues (i.e., interper-sonal and informational justice signals) and partic-ipants’ reported organizational attraction wasweaker under the condition in which preexistinginformation was provided. That is, justice signalsassociated with recruitment interactions would in-fluence organizational attraction less because theydid less to increase positive relational certainty.

TABLE 3Study 1: Bootstrapped Results for Indirect Effects and Supplementary Effect Sizesa

Bootstrap Results for Indirect Effectb

ModelBootstrap

Indirect EffectBootstrap

s.e.Lower Limit

95% CIUpper Limit

95% CI

Interpersonal justice perceptions (via positive relationalcertainty) on organizational attraction

.10 .03 .05 .17

Informational justice perceptions (via positiverelational certainty) on organizational attraction

.09 .03 .04 .18

a n � 128 (job seekers). Bootstrap sample size � 2,000. Bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals are reported.b With initial organizational attraction and applicant status controlled for.


Thus, we tested the following hypothesis inStudy 2:

Hypothesis 4. The relationship between (a) in-terpersonal and (b) informational justice and or-ganizational attraction is weaker when partici-pants have preexisting knowledge of superiororganizational employee relations practices.

STUDY 2 METHODS

Participants

We recruited Study 2 participants who were notinvolved in Study 1 from upper-level managementcourses at a large southwestern university. Partici-pants received extra course credit for participation.Of those solicited (n � 129), 94 (73%) providedcomplete data used for analyses. The final sampleconsisted of 52 percent men and had a mean age of21.20 (s.d. � 2.27). Sixty-seven percent of samplemembers identified their ethnicity as white, 18 per-cent, as Latin-American, 11 percent, as African-American, and 4 percent, as Asian-American.


To facilitate our between-persons experimentaldesign, we informed all participants that a Fortune500 organization (named “HBA Corporation”) hadrequested assistance in evaluating their recruit-ment practices. We directed the participants to awebsite that provided specific instructions for par-ticipation. The instruction page informed partici-pants that their task was to (a) take the role of anactive job seeker, (b) evaluate HBA Corporation asif they were considering the company as a potentialemployer, (c) complete the online application pro-cess (i.e., provide basic information related to theireducation, prior work experience, special skills,e-mail contact, etc.), and (d) respond to a series ofshort surveys intended to assess their reactions toHBA’s recruitment practices. Participants werethen randomly directed to one of two experimentalwebsite conditions designed specifically for Study2 (website manipulations are discussed in the fol-lowing section). After viewing one of the two web-sites and completing the online application pro-cess, participants responded to a time 1 surveyincorporating demographic items and measures in-tended to assess perceptions of the organizationand the recruitment website.

Approximately two days after submitting thetime 1 survey, we randomly sent participants one

of two correspondence e-mails from HBA Corpora-tion (correspondence manipulations are discussedin more detail below). One week after we sent thise-mail, we gave participants a time 2 survey thatincluded measures intended to assess their organi-zational attraction to HBA, interpersonal justice,and informational justice.

Recruitment Website Manipulations

We used two experimental recruitment websites,identical in design and the information presentedon the following four links: “Career Development,”“Pay and Benefits,” “Company Information,” and“Our Plan for Growth.” The only difference in thewebsites was that one included a “pop-up” win-dow on the homepage that participants had to closebefore viewing the remainder of the website. Weintended the website pop-up to provide partici-pants with information regarding superior em-ployee relations practices; it included thesestatements:

● HBA has recently been recognized as one of theFortune 100 Best Companies to Work For 2010. Thatmakes three years in a row!!!!

● Among industry competitors, HBA had the small-est percentage of employees leaving voluntarily forthe past five years. As noted by founder Jared York,“We strive to make our employees happy becausethey are our very best ambassadors.”

● HBA celebrates diversity and believes that attract-ing and hiring talented individuals of every possibleperspective is critical to our success.

Participants could not view the website beforeclosing the pop-up window, and the websitewould not load if the pop-up window was blockedby a web browser.

Organizational Correspondence Manipulations

We designed two different correspondence e-mailsto represent either (a) high interpersonal and infor-mational justice signals or (b) low interpersonaland informational justice signals. Previous researchsuggests that individuals respond more favorablywhen explanations are high in informational jus-tice (i.e., include adequate information) and inter-personal justice (i.e., information is delivered in asensitive manner [Greenberg, 1994; Ployhart, Ryan,& Bennett, 1999]). We followed Ployhart et al.’s(1999) approach to develop the following e-mail to


represent the high interpersonal and informationaljustice signal condition:

Dear __________,

Thanks for applying! We are excited that you havechosen to apply for the management trainee positionat HBA. We have received all of your applicationmaterials and will be reviewing this information inthe next seven business days. Should you have anyquestions regarding your application, please contactSusan Wilky at [email protected].

The low interpersonal and informational justicesignal condition simply read, “A representativefrom HBA will contact you if you are selected for aninterview.”

Measures

We assessed participants’ perceptions of organi-zational attractiveness, interpersonal justice, andinformational justice with the same measures usedin Study 1. Coefficient alphas for these measures inStudy 2 were as follows: organizational attractive-ness, .89; interpersonal justice, .86; and informa-tional justice, .92.

STUDY 2 RESULTS

Manipulation Check

We conducted a manipulation check to ensurethat participants presented with the pop-up win-dow (in the experimental condition) knew moreabout HBA’s employee relations practices than par-ticipants in the control group. After viewing theirassigned website, participants were asked to indi-cate how much they knew, from information gath-ered from the recruitment website, about organiza-tional characteristics such as employee relations,community involvement, and corporate strategy (1 �

“I know very little,” 4 � “I know a lot”). Our results(F[1,93] � 40.69, p � .01, �2 � .31, d � 1.33)confirmed our intended manipulations, as partici-pants in the pop-up window condition (mean �3.24, s.d. � 0.53) indicated they had more knowl-edge of employee relations practices than individ-uals in the control condition (mean � 2.50,s.d. � 0.58).


A confirmatory factor analysis revealed that ourproposed three-factor model fit the data well(�2[74] � 77.66, RMSEA � .02, SRMR � .07, NFI �.94, CFI � .99). Comparison of this model withalternative models did not reveal a better fit for ourdata. Table 4 reports descriptive statistics, coeffi-cient alphas, and correlations among Study 2 vari-ables. We stated in Hypothesis 4 that the relation-ship between (part a) interpersonal justice and (partb) informational justice and organizational attrac-tiveness is weaker when participants have preex-isting knowledge of an organization’s employee re-lations practices (i.e., were in the pop-up windowcondition). To test our hypothesis, we used hierar-chical moderated multiple regression. We enteredthe main effects for interpersonal justice, informa-tional justice, and website condition (0 � “withoutemployee relations information,” 1 � “with em-ployee relations information”) in step 1. In step 2,we entered interpersonal justice by website condi-tion and informational justice by website condi-tion. As indicated in Table 5, both cross-productterms were significant (interpersonal justice �website condition, b � �.39, p � .05; informationaljustice � website condition, b � �.32, p � .05) andaccounted for unique variance in organizationalattraction (�R2 � .11, p � .01). As predicted, plotsof these effects and simple slope tests revealed a


Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4

1. Interpersonal justice perceptions 2.89 0.88 (.86)2. Informational justice perceptions 2.70 1.06 .41** (.92)3. Website conditionb 0.45 0.50 �.01 .034. Organizational attractiveness 3.65 0.83 .40** .26* .27** (.89)

a n � 94 (participants). Parentheses contain coefficient alphas for measures used in the study. All tests are two-tailed.b 0 � “website without employee relations information,” 1 � “website with employee relations information.”

* p � .05** p � .01


positive relationship between interpersonal justice(t[93] � 3.94, p � .01) and informational justice(t[93] � 2.17, p � .05) and organizational attractive-ness for participants presented with the website

that did not contain employee relations informa-tion but not for those presented with the websitecontaining the pop-up window (interpersonal jus-tice, t[93] � 0.74, p � .46; informational justice,t[93] � �0.80, p � .43). We have only included oneplot, showing the effects for interpersonal justiceon organizational attraction (see Figure 3), becausethe two plots are similar. These results supportedHypotheses 4a and 4b.

STUDY 2 DISCUSSION

Study 2 complemented the results of Study 1 byexplicitly investigating the uncertainty reductionmechanism responsible for the relationship be-tween interpersonal and informational justice sig-nals and job seekers’ organizational attraction per-ceptions. Moving from the field into the labafforded us greater confidence in our proposed me-diating mechanism. We incorporated a moderation-of-process design (Spencer et al., 2005) and foundexperimental evidence suggesting that when jobseekers have preexisting knowledge about organi-zational employee relations practices, the justicesignals associated with contact episodes do less toaffect organizational attraction. However, in the ab-sence of employee relations information, justicesignals have a greater impact on job seekers’ organ-izational attraction. Results were consistent withStudy 1 findings and provided further evidence

TABLE 5Study 2: Summary of Hierarchical Moderated Multiple

Regression Results for Effects on OrganizationalAttractivenessa

OrganizationalAttractiveness

Predictor �R2 b s.e.

1. Interpersonal justice .49** .122. Informational justice .24* .113. Website conditionb .44** .14After step 1 .24**4. Interpersonal justice � website

conditions�.39* .18

5. Informational justice � websiteconditions

�.32* .15

After step 2 .11**

Overall F 9.70**Overall R2 .35Adjusted R2 .32

a n � 94 (participants). Unstandardized regression coeffi-cients (b’s) are shown.

b 0 � “website without employee relations information,” 1 �“website with employee relations information.”

* p � .05** p � .01

FIGURE 3Study 2: Plot of the Interactive Effects of Interpersonal Justice by Website Condition on

Organizational Attractiveness

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Low Interpersonal Justice High Interpersonal Justice

Website without employee relations information

Website with employee relations information

OrganizationalAttractiveness


that justice evaluations associated with recruitmentinteractions following application submission aresignaling cues that influence organizational attrac-tion by increasing job seekers’ positive relationalcertainty.

STUDY 3: DYNAMIC MODEL OFUNCERTAINTY REDUCTION

The mediation model of job seekers’ reactions toa first recruitment interaction tested in Study 1provides initial insight into the roles of justice sig-nals and uncertainty reduction during recruitment.Although Study 1 results supported a pattern of me-diation, we tested our hypothesized associations us-ing a between-persons design incorporating staticmethods. However, the maintenance phase of re-cruitment is not static. Instead, it is more likely tounfold over time and to include multiple interac-tions between job seekers and organizational repre-sentatives. By employing a longitudinal (repeated-measures) design in Study 3, we sought toconstructively extend Study 1 findings by testingdynamic mediated relationships over a longer spanof time. We anticipated that doing so would im-prove our understanding of job seekers’ organiza-tional attraction by more fully capturing the dy-namic effects of justice signals and positiverelational certainty.

Fairness heuristic theory (Lind, 2001) considerstemporal issues in explaining how justice percep-tions are formed. In particular, Lind observed that“the generation and use of fairness judgments willbe episodic” (2001: 69). According to Marks, Ma-thieu, and Zaccaro (2001), for example, episodesare naturally segmented, with the conclusion ofone marking the initiation of another. Because jus-tice judgments exhibit an episodic patterning, Lindand his colleagues also posited that individuals “gointo fairness-assessing mode whenever there arereal or symbolic indications that the relationship ischanging, and it is in that mode that fairness-rele-vant information will have the greatest impact onfairness judgments” (Lind, Kray, & Thompson,2001: 191). In a recruitment context, it seems rea-sonable to presume job seekers’ repeated contactswith a potential employer are a conceivable indi-cator of a relationship change. Thus, we view re-cruitment interactions as a series of contact epi-sodes that job seekers associate with specificauthority figures and/or recruitment occurrences(cf. Beal, Weiss, Barros, & MacDermid, 2005: 1055).In this respect, Marks et al. contended, “each epi-

sode has a valence, or relative importance, attachedto it that may heighten or weaken its salience”(2001: 359–360). Drawing on these theoretical per-spectives, we posited that systematic intraindi-vidual variation in job seekers’ current justice per-ceptions would capture meaningful deviationsfrom justice perceptions formed because of a priorcontact episode. That is, a contact episode from aprior time will act as a reference point when anindividual is interpreting the valence of a subse-quent episode during the maintenance phase ofrecruitment. This view is reinforced further bysome emerging literature on justice as a dynamicconstruct (e.g., Hausknecht, Sturman, & Roberson,2011) and in management research (Chen, Ployhart,Thomas, Anderson, & Bliese, 2011) more generally,according to which employees use past experiencesas a reference point for evaluating and respondingto current workplace experiences.

Thus, the direction of justice change plays animportant role in understanding how and why itseffects on job seekers’ positive relational certaintyand organizational attraction might systematicallyvary in intensity over time. Whereas a relative im-provement in fairness perceptions will signal a pos-itive (i.e., gains) discrepancy, a relative decline in-timates a negative (i.e., losses) discrepancy. Forexample, an upward trend or positive discrepancymay reactivate job seekers’ justice judgment pro-cess and allow relatively low justice perceptions toincrease. For the same reason, however, job seekerswith relatively high justice perceptions can experi-ence a downward trend if the next few contactepisodes suggest unfair treatment. Prior researchhas shown that justice perceptions can systemati-cally vary (i.e., upward or downward) within indi-viduals over time (Hausknecht et al., 2011; Loi,Yang, & Diefendorff, 2009). Therefore, previous re-search findings are consistent with our theoreticalcontention that justice signals are likely malleableduring the maintenance phase as job seekers at-tempt to gather fairness information to aid in theformation of a fairness heuristic (Lind, 2001).

Our dynamic mediation model asserts that theindirect effect of justice perceptions change onorganizational attraction change is transmittedthrough change in positive relational certainty.Because job seekers appraise each deviation in anupward justice trend as providing additional infor-mation about the trustworthiness of an organiza-tional authority (Holtz & Harold, 2009; Lind, 2001),it follows that a positive trend will increase jobseekers’ positive relational certainty, thereby fos-


tering increased levels of organizational attraction.In contrast, when job seekers experience a negativejustice trend (i.e., downward change), they mayview their future employment relationship withincreasing uncertainty, thus increasing their atti-tude of indifference to an organization. Accord-ingly, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 5. (a) Interpersonal justice changeand (b) informational justice change positivelyrelate to positive relational certainty change:Increase (decrease) in interpersonal justiceand informational justice is associated withincrease (decrease) in positive relationalcertainty.

Hypothesis 6. Positive relational certaintychange positively relates to organizational at-traction change: Increase (decrease) in positiverelational certainty is associated with increase(decrease) in organizational attraction.

Hypothesis 7. Change in positive relational cer-tainty mediates the positive relationship be-tween organizational attraction change and (a)interpersonal justice change and (b) informa-tional justice change.

STUDY 3 METHODS

Participants

For Study 3, we solicited participants who did notoverlap with participants in Studies 1 and 2 fromstudents enrolled in upper-level undergraduatemanagement courses at two southeastern universi-ties. Course instructors offered extra course creditfor participation, and we entered participants in arandom drawing for restaurant gift certificates. Ofthe 228 students initially targeted, 119 (52%) indi-cated they were currently applying for employmentonline and completed the time 1 survey. We re-moved 47 (40%) of the 119 job seekers because ofmissing data. Of the 72 participants providing us-able data, 53 percent were female, and mean agewas 21.75 (s.d. � 1.63). Further, 88 percent of par-ticipants identified themselves as white, 8 percent,as African-American, and 4 percent, as Latin-American.


We provided each participant with a surveypacket. The first page explained the nature of thestudy and provided instructions for completing the

remainder of the packet. We asked job seekers tofocus on one organization that they were planningto pursue employment with but had not yet appliedto or interacted with. For ten consecutive weeks,we surveyed job seekers and asked them to describeeach contact episode (e.g., date of each interaction,personal reflections about the interaction) with thisorganization immediately after it occurred. In ad-dition, we asked them to complete items assessinginterpersonal justice, informational justice, posi-tive relational confidence, and organizational at-traction after each contact episode. In total, 237observations were available from the 72 job seekerparticipants. The average number of contact epi-sodes per job seeker during the ten weeks was 3.43(minimum � 3 and maximum � 5).

Measures

We used the measures included in Study 1 inStudy 3. Survey instructions, however, asked par-ticipants to respond with respect to the most recentcontact episode with their potential employer. Spe-cifically for Study 3, we also assessed a set of time-invariant measures that we used as controls in ourhypothesis testing. These controls included partic-ipants’ a priori beliefs about how one should betreated by an employer—that is, the expectations aparticipant had about interpersonal (three items[Bell, Wiechmann, & Ryan, 2006]; � � .89) andinformational (four items [Bell et al., 2006]; � � .92)justice before any interaction occurred with his/herorganization. We likewise assessed participants’ (a)positive relational certainty before any interactionoccurred (three items [Truxillo & Bauer, 1999]; � �.76) and (b) organizational attraction to the poten-tial employer before any interaction had transpired(five items [Highhouse et al., 2003]; � � .85). Weincluded these between-person controls becausethey were thought to capture job seekers’ generalexpectations of expected treatment during the re-cruitment process, and justice expectations havebeen shown to influence individuals’ reactions inthe workplace (e.g., Bell et al., 2006; Rodell &Colquitt, 2009).

Data Analyses

We used random coefficient modeling to developand test a dynamic mediation model that predictsintraindividual change. This approach allows theanalysis of variables at multiple levels using a se-ries of regression equations (Bliese & Ployhart,


2002). In the present instance, the basic randomcoefficient model includes time, a dynamic predic-tor (e.g., time-varying justice perceptions), and adynamic mediator (e.g., time-varying positive rela-tional certainty) to explain intraindividual changein organizational attraction. Given our focus onwithin-person effects, we centered the time-varyingpredictors and mediator on each individual’smeans (Enders & Tofighi, 2007) to remove any in-terindividual variance in the estimates of intrain-dividual effects. We conducted our analyses usingthe nonlinear and linear mixed effects (NLME) pro-gram for S-PLUS and R (Pinheiro & Bates, 2000).

In testing our hypothesized dynamic mediatedrelationships, we followed recommendations byBliese and Ployhart (2002) as well as Pitariu andPloyhart (2010) to initially test whether there waschange over time in each focal variable. Next, weapplied a model-building approach (Bliese & Ploy-hart, 2002; Ployhart & Ward, 2011) that progres-sively estimates and evaluates more complex mod-els. The purpose of these model-building steps wasto determine the relationship between job seekers’organizational attraction and time while also takinginto account the possibility of autocorrelation andheteroskedasticity. We then tested the significanceof the proposed dynamic mediated effect (ab) usingbootstrapping methods (see Bauer, Preacher, & Gil,2006). Mirroring Study 1, bootstrap sample sizewas 2,000.

STUDY 3 RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

In a first step, we estimated a set of null modelsto determine whether our dynamic variables (inter-

personal justice, informational justice, positive re-lational certainty, and organizational attraction)varied substantially within- and between-individ-uals. As shown in Table 6, the within-person vari-ance components (�2) of the dynamic variablesranged from .03 to .31 (interpersonal justice, �2 �.09, informational justice, �2 � .03, positive rela-tional certainty, �2 � .21, organizational attraction,�2 � .31). The between-person variance compo-nents (�00) for the dynamic variables were signifi-cant (p’s � .001), ranging from .57 to .85 (interper-sonal justice, �00 � .73, informational justice, �00 �.85, positive relational certainty, �00 � .80, organi-zational attraction, �00 � .57). The percentage oftotal within-individual variability ranged from 3.4to 35.4% (interpersonal justice, 11.1%, informa-tional justice, 3.4%, positive relational certainty,20.8%, organizational attraction, 35.4%). With thepossible exception of informational justice (3.4%),the amount of within-individual variability was nottrivial. Thus, we deemed it appropriate to partitionthe variability in our dynamic variables into with-in- and between-person components.

We then identified the fixed function of time,determined the appropriate error structure, and ex-amined the variability in growth parameters (Bliese& Ployhart, 2002). Analysis indicated that organi-zational attraction follows a linear growth trajec-tory. The within-individual errors were not corre-lated, suggesting autocorrelation did not undulyinfluence standard errors. We also found that or-ganizational attraction variability increased overtime. As one might expect, this result suggests thatthe spread of individual attraction scores increasedwith each additional contact episode. To accountfor heteroskedasticity, we included an additional


Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Interpersonal justice expectation 3.68 0.93 (.89)2. Informational justice expectation 3.57 0.96 .51** (.92)3. Initial positive relational certainty 3.32 0.58 .27* .34** (.76)4. Initial organizational attractiveness 3.94 0.61 .23 .28* .46** (.85)5. Interpersonal justice 3.27 0.58 �.06 .08 .13 .24* (.84)6. Informational justice 3.25 0.57 �.01 .17 .12 .35** .57** (.83)7. Positive relational certainty 3.34 0.69 �.14 �.01 .28* .36** .52** .49** (.86)8. Organizational attractiveness 3.53 0.71 �.09 �.08 .01 .52** .45** .42** .51** (.86)

a n � 72 (job seekers). Expectation variables were measured at the person level. All other variables were aggregated to the person level.We computed descriptive statistics ignoring the multilevel structure of the data for simplicity. Readers should keep in mind that theaggregated values reported combined variance due to fluctuations over time and across job seekers.

* p � .05** p � .01


restriction on the error variance-covariance matrixwhen computing the random coefficient models.As Bliese and Ployhart explained, this procedure isanalogous to accounting for covariates in a modelprior to interpreting effects of interest.


A confirmatory factor analysis revealed that ourproposed four-factor model fit the data well (time1, �2[113] � 219.08, RMSEA � .09, SRMR � .08,NFI � .92, CFI � .96; time 2, �2[113] � 133.74,RMSEA � .04, SRMR � .07, NFI � .94, CFI � .99;time 3, �2[113] � 140.22, RMSEA � .06, SRMR �.09, NFI � .84, CFI � .96). Comparison of thismodel with alternative models did not reveal abetter fit for our data. Additionally, the samplesizes associated with the repeated measures at time4 and time 5 prevented CFAs (i.e., the number ofparameters to be estimated exceeded the samplesize). Table 6 presents descriptive statistics, coeffi-cient alphas, and correlations among Study 3 vari-ables. Summarizing Hypotheses 5–7, we predictedthat that the dynamic relationship between justice(interpersonal and informational) signals associ-ated with recruitment interactions and organiza-tional attraction is mediated by positive relationalcertainty. Table 7 (model 1) shows that interper-sonal justice change was positively related (b � .37,p � .01) to positive relational certainty change,

supporting Hypothesis 5, part a. As shown in Table8 (model 1), and in keeping with Hypothesis 5, partb, informational justice change was also positivelyrelated (b � .19, p � .05) to positive relationalcertainty change. Results (see model 2 in Tables 7and 8) likewise demonstrate a positive dynamicrelationship between positive relational certaintychange and organizational attraction (b � .19, p �.01). These results support Hypotheses 6–7 and arein line with our dynamic mediation hypotheses.Concerning interpersonal justice, bootstrappedconfidence intervals of the indirect effect (ab � .07)did not include zero (lower 95% CI � .02; upper95% CI � .13), providing further support for Hy-pothesis 7, part a. For informational justice, boot-strapped confidence intervals of the indirect effect(ab � .04) approached, but did not include, zero(lower 95% CI � .003; upper 95% CI � .08), thussupporting Hypothesis 7, part b.

STUDY 3 DISCUSSION

Although an assumption in the recruitment liter-ature is that job seekers’ responses to recruitmentactivities remain stable over time, there have beencalls (Truxillo, Steiner, & Gilliland, 2004) for lon-gitudinal investigations—thereby implying this as-sumption does not necessarily hold. In response,our purpose in Study 3 was to advance and empir-ically test a “dynamic” version of the mediation

TABLE 7Study 3: The Dynamic Effects of Interpersonal Justice and Positive Relational Certainty on Organizational Attractiona

Model 1: Model 2:Positive Relational Organizational

Variables Certainty Change Attraction Change

Intercept 2.83 (.46)** 2.00 (.49)**Time �0.20 (.07)** 0.04 (.06)ControlsInterpersonal justice expectation (time-invariant) �0.22 (.08)** �0.13 (.07)Initial positive relational certainty (time-invariant) 0.47 (.13)** �0.27 (.13)*Initial organizational attraction (time-invariant) — 0.73 (.13)**Informational justice (time-varying) 0.18 (.08)* 0.10 (.07)Intraindividual changeInterpersonal justice 0.37 (.08)** 0.07 (.07)Positive relational certainty 0.19 (.07)**Model fit indexes–2 log-likelihood 321.3 298.3AIC 662.6 620.5BIC 697.1 661.7

a n � 72 (job seekers); 237 (observations). Standard errors are reported in parentheses. Intraindividual change � level 1; interindividualchange � level 2. AIC � Akaike information criterion; BIC � Bayesian information criterion.

* p � .05** p � .01


model tested in Study 1. In doing so, Study 3 ex-tended the previously reported two studies by ex-amining job seekers’ reactions to recruitment interac-tions over time. Most organizations have multipleinteractions with desired job seekers after applica-tion submission, and it is important to examinehow, why, and when reactions to these interactionsinfluence organizational attraction. Results weregenerally consistent with our predictions and sug-gested that job seekers use recruitment interactionsas justice signals throughout the maintenancephase of recruitment. As we anticipated, these sig-nals influence organizational attraction via positiverelational certainty. Study 3 results also add to ourunderstanding of fairness heuristic theory by indi-cating that the justice heuristic is being formed andjob seekers’ organizational perceptions are stillmalleable.

Study 3 represents an important departure fromthe mainstream recruitment literature in that thepredominant use of between-persons designs hasprohibited a strong understanding of how temporalfactors (cf. Maxwell & Cole, 2007) affect the expe-rience of recruitment interactions and how fluctu-ations in justice signals may affect changes in jobseekers’ attitudes toward recruiting organizations.Stated differently, by moving from a between-per-sons model of mediation (Study 1) to an analysis oflongitudinal multivariate relationships that changeand evolve over time (Study 3), our approach over-

comes conceptual and methodological shortcom-ings associated with past recruitment researchbased solely on between-persons designs (Pitariu &Ployhart, 2010; Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). Be-cause the maintenance phase of recruitment likelyincludes several contact episodes that unfold overtime, we suggest that to be fully understood, jobseekers’ reactions to justice signals should be ex-amined in a longitudinal context.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Previous research has identified ways organiza-tions can increase job seekers’ initial attraction toorganizations (e.g., Highhouse et al., 1998; Walkeret al., 2009), but far less is known about how or-ganizations can maintain applicant interest. Suchknowledge is valuable as many recruitment effortsare carried out as processes over time rather thanthrough a single hiring event. In three studies, weexamined job seekers’ reactions to treatment re-ceived during the maintenance phase of recruit-ment. Results showed that the treatment receivedserves as a signal about the types of relationshipsthat exist in organizations and can influence job seek-ers’ organizational perceptions. We believe thesefindings have important implications for theory, re-cruitment research, and recruiting organizations.

TABLE 8Study 3: The Dynamic Effects of Informational Justice and Positive Relational Certainty on Organizational Attractiona

Model 1: Model 2:Positive Relational Organizational

Variables Certainty Change Attraction Change

Intercept 2.53 (.47)** 1.97 (.47)**Time �0.20 (.07)** 0.04 (.06)ControlsInformational justice expectation (time-invariant) �0.10 (.08) �0.17 (.07)*Initial positive relational certainty (time-invariant) 0.43 (.14)** �0.24 (.13)Initial organizational attraction (time-invariant) — 0.74 (.12)**Interpersonal justice (time-varying) 0.35 (.08)** 0.06 (.07)Intraindividual changeInformational justice 0.19 (.08)* 0.13 (.07)Positive relational certainty 0.19 (.07)**Model fit indexes–2 log-likelihood 323.9 297.1AIC 667.9 618.2BIC 702.3 659.4

a n � 72 (job seekers); 237 (observations). Intraindividual change � level 1; interindividual change � level 2. Standard errors arereported in parentheses. AIC � Akaike information criterion; BIC � Bayesian information criterion.

* p � .05** p � .01


Theoretical Implications

We integrated signaling, uncertainty reduction,and uncertainty management theories to develop anew conceptual model that explains how, why, andwhen contact episodes are likely to influence or-ganizational attraction during the maintenancephase of recruitment. Regarding the how and whyquestions, we showed that uncertainty reduction isan intervening mechanism through which justicesignals influence organizational attraction in thethree studies presented. We are unaware of existingresearch that explicitly tests this mediation effect.Through our conceptual model testing, we simul-taneously answered calls to use multiple theorieswhen explaining justice phenomena (Colquitt et al.,2012) and provide a stronger theoretical groundingfor how and why recruitment activities influencejob seekers’ organizational perceptions (Breaugh &Starke, 2000; Ehrhart & Ziegert, 2005).

The dynamic mediation model tested in Study 3also provides important theoretical insight regard-ing the recruitment relationships between job seek-ers and organizations as they evolve and changewith the passage of time. While we relied on prom-inent theoretical frameworks from the organization-al justice literature (Lind, 2001; Lind & van denBos, 2002; van den Bos & Lind, 2002) to argue thatjob seekers use justice signals to assess expectedorganizational relations (Lind, 2001), our dynamicpredictions deviate slightly from some of the corepropositions associated with these theories. Specif-ically, fairness heuristic theory (Lind, 2001) wouldpredict that job seekers’ fairness heuristic is formedrather quickly (e.g., on the basis of their initialinteraction), so that the heuristic can be employedto inform future decisions. As a result, this notionsuggests that job seekers are unlikely to responddifferently to justice signals as they unfold overtime. In contrast, we proposed and empiricallydemonstrated that justice perceptions fluctuatedover time. It appears that when job seekers per-ceived discrepancies (i.e., positive or negative) be-tween the levels of fairness experienced in the pastversus the present, they amended their justice per-ceptions accordingly. In keeping with the idea thatindividuals’ justice perceptions are dynamic andlikely to change over time (Hausknecht et al., 2011;Holtz & Harold, 2009), our results suggest that jobseekers’ fairness heuristic was still malleable in themaintenance phase of recruitment.

On this basis, we reason that these recruitmentinteractions may serve as distinguishable events

that can “push” job seekers toward deliberate judg-ments about their anticipated futures with recruit-ing firms. Perhaps in the context of recruitment,justice signals generate information that is inter-preted and integrated into job seekers’ personalnarratives of fit (Shipp & Jansen, 2011), defined astime-oriented chronicles, or stories, that connectthe past and present with the future (see alsoBeach, 2010). According to Shipp and Jansen, forexample, these crafted stories of fit over time mayprovide job seekers with answers to “why ques-tions,” such as Why should I want to work here?and Would I fit in here? With regard to recruitmenttheory, our dynamic model results indicate that afocus on justice signals as a single event does notfully explain the phenomenological experience in-herent in the maintenance phase of recruitment.

Managerial Implications

From a practical standpoint, our results supportsignaling theory and suggest that organizations pro-vide signals through recruitment activities. It ap-pears that the correspondence delivered to job seek-ers convey justice signals. Therefore, it is importantfor organizations to carefully consider the qualityof interactions because they can influence organi-zational attitudes during the maintenance phase ofrecruitment. Our findings suggest that one way toaccomplish this task and encourage the develop-ment of positive relationships early in the recruit-ment process is through the correspondence pro-vided to job seekers immediately followingapplication submission. Even initial correspon-dence sent to job seekers, which is often an auto-matic reply following application receipt, appearsto influence job seekers’ reactions to hiring organ-izations. Organizations have control over recruit-ment procedures, and the characteristics of initialcorrespondence with job seekers likely affect organ-izational attitudes (Truxillo et al., 2004). Our find-ings are consistent with the selection decisionsand explanations literature (see Shaw, Wild, andColquitt [2003] and Truxillo, Bodner, Bertolino,Bauer, and Yonce [2009] for reviews) and suggestcarefully planning correspondence with desiredjob seekers is a relatively low cost and potentiallyeffective strategy that may allow organizations topositively influence job seekers’ attitudes. For ex-ample, Truxillo et al. confirmed the importance ofcarefully planning interactions with job seekers ina recent meta-analysis of the explanations receivedduring the selection process and noted “employers


may be able to affect their attractiveness to jobapplicants by simply providing inexpensive expla-nations at opportune times” (2009: 356). Our find-ings indicate the same may be true regarding cor-respondence provided to job seekers followingtheir employment application submission.

Potential Limitations and Future Research

We acknowledge several potential limitations ofour research. First, our studies were limited to jus-tice signals associated with recruitment contact ep-isodes. It is important to acknowledge that otherenvironmental cues encountered during recruit-ment may influence organizational attitudes, andmore concrete organizational information may sup-plant justice signals over time (Connelly et al.,2011). Therefore, future researchers should exam-ine the combined effects of perceived treatmentearly in the recruitment process and more objectivejob or organizational attributes on actual job choicedecisions. It would be interesting to test the relativeweights that job seekers give to recruitment fairnessand other variables known to influence the recruit-ment process, such as recruiter/interviewer behav-iors (Powell & Goulet, 1996; Stevens, 1997; Turban& Dougherty, 1992), job attitudes (Chapman et al.,2005), and organizational attitudes (Turban &Keon, 1993). We encourage future research to ad-dress these important questions.

Another possible limitation relates to the sam-ples used in all three studies, as most participantswere not currently employed. Therefore, we en-courage future researchers to extend our findingsbeyond soon-to-be college graduates. Additionally,the job market conditions at the time of Study 1 andStudy 3 data collections may have influenced ourresults, as we collected these data before the recenteconomic downturn. Thus, the relationships be-tween justice signals and organizational attractionmay not be as strong when job market conditionsmake it difficult to find employment. If true, thepresent findings should be viewed as conservativeestimates, and we encourage future research thatconsiders economic conditions on job seeker reac-tions. Specifically, research that investigates thepossibility that fair treatment influences job seek-ers’ organizational attitudes less when job pros-pects are rare is needed.

Finally, future research should attempt to “trian-gulate” our findings in both laboratory and fieldsettings using behavioral measures. Research onapplicant reactions has found mixed results in the

lab versus field (Hausknecht et al., 2004) with fieldsettings tending to show stronger results becauseparticipants are more personally involved (Truxilloet al., 2009). While we incorporated a series ofstudies that helped to triangulate this issue, itwould be helpful for future research to create botha lab and field study using the same participants tofurther disentangle these effects.

In summary, we provide evidence of job seekers’attempts to reduce uncertainty during organization-al recruitment. For organizational scholars, ourwork suggests that one fruitful avenue of futureinquiry involves building upon our efforts to incor-porate additional theory surrounding the recruit-ment process over time. For scholars who test suchtheory, our work demonstrates the importance oftesting hypotheses over multiple time periods tofully understand recruitment dynamics. For humanresource practitioners, our work warns that organ-izations should not neglect the formal and informalcues projected to applicants throughout the recruit-ment process.

REFERENCES

Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T. N., & Cable, D. M. 2001. Areyou attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A recruitingpolicy-capturing study. Journal of Business andPsychology, 16: 219–237.

Allen, D. G., Mahto, R. V., & Otondo, R. F. 2007. Web-based recruitment: Effects of information, organiza-tional brand, and attitudes toward web site on appli-cant attraction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92:1696–1708.

Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. 2003. Organizationstructure as a moderator of the relationship betweenprocedural justice, interactional justice, perceivedorganizational support, and supervisory trust. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 88: 295–305.

Barber, A. E. 1998. Recruiting employees: Individualand organizational perspectives. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. 2006. Conceptual-izing and testing random indirect effects and moder-ated mediation in multilevel models: New proceduresand recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11:142–163.

Bauer, T. N., Maertz, C. P., Dolen, M. R., & Campion,M. A. 1998. Longitudinal assessment of applicantreactions to employment testing and test outcomefeedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 892–903.

Beach, L. R. 2010. The psychology of narrative thought:


How the stories we tell ourselves shape our lives.Bloomington, IN: Xlibris.

Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M.2005. An episodic process model of affective influ-ences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 90: 1054–1068.

Bell, B. S., Wiechmann, D., & Ryan, A. M. 2006. Conse-quences of organizational justice expectations in aselection system. Journal of Applied Psychology,91: 455–466.

Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. 1975. Some explorations ininitial interaction and beyond: Toward a develop-mental theory of interpersonal communication. Hu-man Communication Research, 1: 99–112.

Bies, R. J. 2005. Are procedural justice and interactionaljustice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A.Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational jus-tice: 85–112. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. 2002. Growth modelingusing random coefficient models: Model building,testing, and illustrations. Organizational ResearchMethods, 5: 362–387.

Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., LePine, M. A., & Moyni-han, L. M. 2003. Individual job-choice decisions andthe impact of job attribute and recruitment practices:A longitudinal field study. Human Resource Man-agement, 42: 23–37.

Breaugh, J. A. 2008. Employee recruitment: Currentknowledge and important areas for future research.Human Resource Management Review, 18: 103–118.

Breaugh, J. A., & Starke, M. 2000. Research on employeerecruitment: So many studies, so many remainingquestions. Journal of Management, 26: 405–434.

Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin,K. A., & Jones, D. A. 2005. Applicant attraction toorganizations and job choice: A meta-analytic reviewof the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 90: 928–944.

Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H. C., Anderson, N., &Bliese, P. D. 2011. The power of momentum: A newmodel of dynamic relationships between job satis-faction change and turnover intentions. Academy ofManagement Journal, 54: 159–181.

Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organiza-tional justice: A construct validation of a measure.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 386–400.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter,C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at the millen-nium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organi-zational justice research. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 86: 425–445.

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P.,

& Rich, B. L. 2012. Explaining the justice-perfor-mance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener ortrust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of AppliedPsychology, 97: 1–15.

Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. 2011. Justice, trust, andtrustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integratingthree theoretical perspectives. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 54: 1183–1206.

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel,C. R. 2011. Signaling theory: An assessment andreview. Journal of Management, 37: 39–67.

Dineen, B. R., & Soltis, S. M. 2010. Recruitment: A reviewof research and emerging directions. In S. Zedeck, A.Aguinis, W. Cascio, K. Leung, S. Parker, & J. Zhou(Eds.), APA handbook of I/O psychology, 2: 43–66.Washington, DC: APA Press.

Ehrhart, K. H., & Ziegert, J. C. 2005. Why are individualsattracted to organizations? Journal of Management,31: 901–919.

Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. 2007. Centering predictorvariables in cross-sectional multilevel models: Anew look at an old issue. Psychological Methods,12: 121–138.

Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of social comparison pro-cesses. Human Relations, 7: 117–140.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1991. Social cognition (2nded.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gilliland, S. W. 1993. The perceived fairness of selectionsystems: An organizational justice perspective. Acad-emy of Management Review, 18: 694–734.

Greenberg, J. 1994. Using socially fair treatment to pro-mote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journalof Applied Psychology, 79: 288–297.

Gudykunst, W. B. 1985. The influence of cultural simi-larity, type of relationship, and self-monitoring onuncertainty reduction processes. CommunicationMonographs, 52: 203–215.

Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. 2004.Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An up-dated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychol-ogy, 57: 639–683.

Hausknecht, J. P., Sturman, M. C., & Roberson, Q. M.2011. Justice as a dynamic construct: Effects of indi-vidual trajectories on distal work outcomes. Journalof Applied Psychology, 96: 872–880.

Highhouse, S. 2009. Designing experiments that generalize.Organizational Research Methods, 12: 554–566.

Highhouse, S., Beadle, D., Gallo, A., & Miller, L. 1998.Get’em while they last! Effects of scarcity informa-tion in job advertisements. Journal of Applied So-cial Psychology, 28: 779–795.

Highhouse, S., Hoffman, J. R., Greve, E. M., & Collins,


A. E. 2002. Persuasive impact of organizational valuestatements in a recruitment context. Journal of Ap-plied Social Psychology, 32: 1737–1755.

Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. 2003. Measuringattraction to organizations. Educational & Psycho-logical Measurement, 63: 986–1001.

Highhouse, S., Thornbury, E. E., & Little, I. S. 2007.Social-identity functions of attraction to organiza-tions. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-sion Processes, 103: 134–146.

Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. 2001.Direct and moderating effects of human capital onstrategy and performance in professional servicefirms: A resource-based perspective. Academy ofManagement Journal, 44: 13–28.

Hogg, M. A. 2007. Uncertainty-identity theory. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-chology: 69–126. San Diego: Elsevier.

Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. 2009. Fair today, fair tomor-row? A longitudinal investigation of overall justiceperceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94:1185–1199.

Howard, A., Erker, S., & Bruce, N. 2006. Selection fore-cast 2006/2007. Pittsburgh: Development Dimen-sions International.

Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. 1997.Technical and strategic human resource manage-ment effectiveness as determinants of firm perfor-mance. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 171–188.

Kellermann, K., & Reynolds, P. R. 1990. When ignoranceis bliss: The role of motivation to reduce uncertaintyin uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communi-cation Research, 17: 5–75.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. 1994. Citizenship behav-ior and social exchange. Academy of ManagementJournal, 37: 656–669.

Lind, E. A. 2001. Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judg-ments as pivotal cognitions in organizational rela-tions. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Ad-vances in organizational justice: 56–88. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Lind, E. A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K., & Welchans, T. 2000.The winding road from employee to complainant:Situational and psychological determinants ofwrongful-termination claims. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 45: 557–590.

Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. 2001. Primacyeffects in justice judgments: Testing predictionsfrom fairness heuristic theory. Organizational Be-havior and Human Decision Processes, 85: 189–210.

Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K. 2002. When fairness works:

Towards a general theory of uncertainty manage-ment. In B. M. Straw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.) Researchin organizational behavior, vol. 24: 181–223. Bos-ton: Elsevier.

Loi, R., Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. 2009. Four-factorjustice and daily job satisfaction: A multilevel inves-tigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 770–781.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M.,West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison ofmethods to test mediation and other interveningvariable effects. Psychological Methods, 7: 83–104.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. Atemporally based framework and taxonomy of teamprocesses. Academy of Management Review, 26:356–376.

Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. 2007. Bias in cross-sectionalanalyses of longitudinal mediation. PsychologicalMethods, 12: 23–44.

Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. 2000. Mixed-effects mod-els in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Pitariu, A. H., & Ployhart, R. E. 2010. Explaining change:Theorizing and testing dynamic mediated longitudi-nal relationships. Journal of Management, 36: 405–429.

Ployhart, R. E. 2006. Staffing in the 21st century: Newchallenges and strategic opportunities. Journal ofManagement, 32: 868–897.

Ployhart, R. E. 2011. Emergence of the human capitalresource: A multilevel model. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 36: 127–150.

Ployhart, R. E., Ryan, A. M., & Bennett, M. 1999. Expla-nations for selection decisions: Applicants’ reactionsto informational and sensitivity features of explana-tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 87–106.

Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2010. Longitudinalresearch: The theory, design, and analysis of change.Journal of Management, 36: 94–120.

Ployhart, R. E., & Ward, A. K. 2011. The “quick startguide” for conducting and publishing longitudinalresearch. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26:413–422.

Powell, G. N., & Goulet, L. R. 1996. Recruiters’ and ap-plicants’ reactions to campus interviews and em-ployment decisions. Academy of ManagementJournal, 39: 1619–1640.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2008. Asymptotic andresampling strategies for assessing and comparingindirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav-ior Research Methods, 40: 879–891.

Rodell, J. B., & Colquitt, J. A. 2009. Looking ahead intimes of uncertainty: The role of anticipatory justice


in an organizational change context. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 94: 989–1002.

Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. 2000. Applicants’ percep-tions of selection procedures and decisions: A criti-cal review and agenda for the future. Journal ofManagement, 26: 565–606.

Ryan, A. M., Sacco, J. M., McFarland, L. A., & Kriska,S. D. 2000. Applicant self-selection: Correlates ofwithdrawal from a multiple hurdle process. Journalof Applied Psychology, 85: 163–179.

Rynes, S. L. 1991. Recruitment, job choice, and post-hireconsequences: A call for new research directions. InM. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook ofindustrial and organizational psychology, vol. 2:399–444. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting PsychologistsPress.

Rynes, S. L., & Cable, D. M. 2003. Recruitment research inthe twenty-first century. In W. C. Borman, D. R.Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychol-ogy, industrial and organizational psychology, vol.12: 55–76. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. 1997. Applicant withdrawal:The role of test-taking attitudes and racial differ-ences. Personnel Psychology, 50: 855–876.

Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2007.Justice as a dependent variable: Subordinate cha-risma as a predictor of interpersonal and informa-tional justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 92: 1597–1609.

Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. 2003. To justify orexcuse? A meta-analytic review of the effects of ex-planations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88:444–458.

Shipp, A. J., & Jansen, K. J. 2011. Reinterpreting time infit theory: Crafting and recrafting narratives of fit inmedias res. Academy of Management Review, 36:76–101.

Spence, A. M. 1974. Market signaling: Informationtransfer in hiring and related screening processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. 2005. Estab-lishing a causal chain: Why experiments are oftenmore effective than meditational analyses in exam-ining psychological processes. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 89: 845–851.

Steel, R. P. 2002. Turnover theory at the empirical inter-face. Academy of Management Review, 27: 346–360.

Stevens, C. K. 1997. Effects of pre-interview beliefs onapplicants’ reactions to campus interviews. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 40: 947–966.

Stevens, C. K., & Beach, L. R. 1996. Job search and jobselection. In L. R. Beach (Ed.), Decision making in

the workplace: A unified perspective: 33–48. Mah-way, NJ: LEA.

Sunnafrank, M. 1990. Predicted outcome value and un-certainty reduction theories: A test of competing per-spectives. Human Communication Research, 17:76–103.

Truxillo, D. M., & Bauer, T. N. 1999. Applicant reactionsto test score banding in entry-level and promotionalcontexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 322–339.

Truxillo, D. M., Bodner, T. E., Bertolino, M., Bauer, T. N.,& Yonce, C. A. 2009. Effects of explanations on ap-plicant reactions: A meta-analytic review. Interna-tional Journal of Selection & Assessment, 17: 346–361.

Truxillo, D. M., Steiner, D. D., & Gilliland, S. W. 2004.The importance of organizational justice in person-nel selection: Defining when selection fairness reallymatters. International Journal of Selection and As-sessment, 12: 39–53.

Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. 1992. Influences ofcampus recruiting on applicant attraction to firms.Academy of Management Journal, 35: 739–765.

Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. 1997. Corporate socialperformance and organizational attractiveness toprospective employees. Academy of ManagementJournal, 40: 658–672.

Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. 1993. Organizational attrac-tiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 78: 184–193.

Tyler, T. R. 1989. The psychology of procedural justice:A test of the group-value model. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 57: 830–838.

van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. 2002. Uncertainty man-agement by means of fairness judgments. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-chology, vol. 34: 1–69. San Diego: Academic.

van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. 2001. Thepsychology of procedural and distributive justiceviewed from the perspective of fairness heuristictheory. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the work-place: From theory to practice: 49–66. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., & Lind, E. A. 1998.When do we need procedural fairness? The role oftrust in authority. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 75: 1449–1458.

Walker, H. J., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., Armenakis, A. A.,& Bernerth, J. B. 2009. Displaying employee testimo-nials on recruitment web sites: Effects of communi-cation media, employee race, and job seeker race onorganizational attraction and information credibil-ity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1354–1364.


Walker, H. J., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Bernerth, J. B.2008. The interactive effects of job advertisementcharacteristics and applicant experience on reac-tions to recruitment messages. Journal of Occupa-tional and Organizational Psychology, 81: 619–638.

Wanberg, C. R., Zhu, J., Kanfer, R., & Zhang, Z. 2012.After the pink slip: Applying dynamic motivationframeworks to the job search experience. Academyof Management Journal, 55: 261–284.

Williams, M. L., & Bauer, T. N. 1994. The effect of a“managing diversity” policy on organizational at-tractiveness. Group & Organization Management,19: 295–308.

H. Jack Walker ([email protected]) is an assistantprofessor of management in the Raymond J. Harbert Col-lege of Business at Auburn University. He received hisPh.D. from Auburn University. His research interests in-clude organizational recruitment, selection, and appli-cant decision making.

Talya N. Bauer ([email protected]) is the Cameron Pro-fessor of Management in the School of Business at Port-land State University. She received her Ph.D. fromPurdue University. Her research interests include rela-tionships at work spanning from initial contact such as

recruitment and selection, to new employee socializationand onboarding and leadership.

Michael S. Cole ([email protected]) is an associate pro-fessor of management in the M. J. Neeley School of Busi-ness, Texas Christian University. He received his Ph.D.from Auburn University. His professional interests focuson multilevel theories, research, and methods as theyrelate to behavior in organizations.

Jeremy B. Bernerth ([email protected]) is an assistantprofessor of management at Louisiana State University.He holds degrees from Auburn University (Ph.D.) and theUniversity of Georgia. His primary research interests fo-cus on justice perceptions and social exchanges withinorganizations.

Hubert S. Feild ([email protected]) is Torchmark Pro-fessor of Management in the Raymond J. Harbert Collegeof Business at Auburn University. He received his Ph.D.from the University of Georgia. His research and teachinginterests include human resource recruitment andselection.

Jeremy C. Short ([email protected]) is the Rath Chairin Strategic Management at the Price College of Business,University of Oklahoma. He received his Ph.D. from Lou-isiana State University. His research focuses on multi-level determinants of firm and individual performance,strategic decision processes, entrepreneurship, researchmethods, franchising, and family business.


IS THIS HOW I WILL BE TREATED? REDUCING UNCERTAINTY ...

Documents

Transcript of IS THIS HOW I WILL BE TREATED? REDUCING UNCERTAINTY ...