Running Head: INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE ON PERSONALITY · adjectives from a variety of scales...

Organization Personality 1

Running Head: ORGANIZATION PERSONALITY PERCEPTIONS

Initial Attraction to Organizations: The Influence of Trait Inferences


Abstract

Organization personality perceptions are the set of personality characteristics associated with

organizations. Previous research has shown evidence for five distinct factors of organization

personality perceptions: Boy Scout, Innovativeness, Dominance, Thrift, and Style. The purpose

of this research was to understand how job seekers' initial attraction to firms is influenced by

their perceptions of these traits. Results indicated that organization personality perceptions

accounted for significant variance in initial organizational attraction, after controlling for

perceived opportunities at the organization, job attribute needs, job attribute supplies, and needs

x supplies interactions. Moreover, several dimensions of self-rated personality interacted with

dimensions of organization personality perceptions to influence attraction. Implications for the

use of this scale in future recruitment research and for establishing the origin of organization

personality perceptions are discussed.


Initial Attraction to Organizations: The Influence of Trait Inferences

It is commonly accepted that job seekers encounter both direct and indirect information

cues during the job search and evaluation process. Direct information cues are signals

consciously manipulated by organizations during the recruitment process (e.g., job

advertisements, recruiter tactics), whereas indirect information cues are signals that are not

consciously manipulated but that nevertheless convey important information about the

organization and what it may be like to work there (Highhouse & Hoffman, 2001; Spence, 1974).

Researchers and practitioners generally have been more concerned with the influence of direct,

rather than indirect, cues. Over the last several years, however, there has been a marked increase

in interest of the influence of indirect cues on individuals' perceptions of the organization's

reputation or their attraction to the company as a place to work (e.g., Gatewood, Gowan, &

Lautenschlager, 1993; Highhouse, Zickar, Thorsteinson, Stierwalt, & Slaughter, 1999). This

increased attention reflects researchers' recognition that job choice is often influenced by a job

seeker's assessment of how joining an organization will impact his or her personal and social

identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Lievens & Highhouse,

2003).

In the present investigation, we studied a specific indirect information cue referred to as

organization personality perceptions. This construct is analogous to brand personality in the

marketing literature, defined by Aaker (1997) as the "set of human characteristics associated

with a brand" (p. 347). Cable and Turban (2001) recently called for further integration of the

recruitment and marketing literatures. They theorized specifically that the concept of brand

equity is directly transportable to the recruitment context. Brand equity refers to the value of

consumers' brand knowledge, and the degree of equity held by a particular brand positively


influences the effectiveness of marketing strategies. This is because consumers have valuable

and favorable knowledge about the brand when they are exposed to marketing for a specific

brand product. In similar fashion, recruitment equity was defined by Cable and Turban as the

value of job seekers' employer knowledge, which positively influences effectiveness of

recruitment because of job seekers' previous knowledge about the organization. Just as a

favorable brand personality positively impacts brand equity (e.g., Callcott & Phillips, 1996,

Hayes, 2000; Strausbaugh, 1999), so too should favorable organization personality perceptions

positively impact recruitment equity.

Slaughter, Zickar, Highhouse, and Mohr (in press) recently developed scales to measure

individuals' perceptions of organizations' personality traits. The authors culled 248 trait

adjectives from a variety of scales previously used to measure human and brand personality. In a

series of studies, this set of items was reduced to 33 adjectives, measuring 5 dimensions of

organization personality perceptions: Boy Scout (e.g., attentive to people), Innovativeness (e.g.,

creative), Dominance (e.g., busy), Thrift (e.g., low budget), and Style (e.g., trendy). The 5-factor

structure was then replicated across multiple studies and samples. Participants' inferences about

organizations' personality traits were found to be related to perceived organizational

attractiveness, job pursuit intentions, and organizational reputation.

At the conclusion of their paper, Slaughter et al. (in press) identified a number of

potentially fruitful avenues for future study. The purpose of the present investigation was to

address two of these issues that we saw as being the most critical next stages in this line of

research. First, we wanted to determine whether organization personality perceptions predict

organizational attractiveness over and above individuals' assessment of traditional job attributes.

Because research on applicant attraction is often fragmented, examining only a few variables at a


time, it is difficult to know which variables are unique influences on attraction, and which

variables can be easily substituted for by others (Breaugh, 1992). Second, based on the

interactionist perspective (Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995) and the

literature on person-organization fit (e.g., Judge & Cable, 1997; Turban & Keon, 1993), we

theorized that specific dimensions of self-rated applicant personality interact with specific

organization personality characteristics to affect attractiveness. Although there is evidence for

the relation between organization personality perceptions and attractiveness, it is likely that that

these relations are stronger for some individuals than they are for others.

The remainder of the introduction unfolds as follows. First, we briefly describe the five-

factor model of organization personality perceptions revealed in the studies conducted by

Slaughter et al. (in press). Next, we discuss concepts from the marketing literature that lead to

predictions regarding the incremental value of organization personality perceptions for predicting

organizational attraction. Finally, we theorize about the linkages between the Big Five

personality variables and the five-factor model of organization personality perceptions, which

lead us to predict that specific dimensions of organization personality will be more important to

some people than they are to others.

Five-Factor Model of Organization Personality Perceptions

As noted above, Slaughter et al. (in press) developed a five-factor model of organization

personality perceptions. First, the researchers culled 248 trait adjectives from various studies of

human and brand personality and added 7 items that were not included but that were thought to

possibly describe organizations' personalities. After several pilot studies, the original list of 255

traits adjective was reduced to 71. The five personality factors emerged in two studies that

followed. In the first study, one sample of university students was asked to rate one of six


companies on the 71 traits. In an exploratory factor analysis, five clear factors emerged,

representing 27 of the original 71 items. Based on the items retained, the authors labeled the

factors Boy Scout (e.g., honest), Innovativeness (e.g., original), Dominance (e.g., big), Thrift

(e.g., low class), and Style (e.g., trendy). This factor structure was confirmed on an independent

sample, with participants who rated different organizations.

In the second study, the five-factor structure was again confirmed on an independent

sample and with different companies. A number of items were added to the scales, for a total of

33 items. These items are presented in Appendix A. As shown in Appendix A, companies that

are perceived as strong on the Boy Scout dimension are perceived to possess such traits as being

friendly, attentive to people, pleasant, family-oriented, cooperative, and helpful. Organizations

higher on the Innovativeness dimension are perceived to more interesting, exciting, unique,

creative, and original, as well as less boring and less plain. Those that are perceived as being

strong on the Dominance dimension are described as successful, popular, dominant, busy, and

active. This personality characteristic captures perceptions of organization's success, high

revenue, and sustained growth. Companies perceived as more Thrifty are described as being low

budget, low class, simple, reduced, sloppy, poor, undersized, and deprived. Finally,

organizations described as being strong on the Style Dimension are described as being relatively

more stylish, fashionable, hip, and trendy.

Slaughter et al. (in press) observed that individuals were more attracted to organizations

that were perceived as high on the Boy Scout, Innovativeness, Dominance, and Style

dimensions, and were less attracted to organizations that were perceived as high on the Thrift

dimension. In two of the three studies in which these relationships were observed, however,

individuals rated the organization's personality characteristics and their attraction to the


organization in the same data collection session. This would seem to increase the possibility that

common method bias will produce or inflate these relationships. The first purpose of the present

investigation was to study this relationship when participants rate personality and attractiveness

in separate data collection sessions. On the basis of previous research, we hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1. Organization personality perceptions will be related to organizational

attractiveness.

Hypothesis 1a. Boy Scout perceptions will be positively related to attractiveness.

Hypothesis 1b. Innovativeness perceptions will be positively related to attractiveness.

Hypothesis 1c. Dominance perceptions will be positively related to attractiveness.

Hypothesis 1d. Thrift perceptions will be negatively related to attractiveness.

Hypothesis 1e. Style perceptions will be positively related to attractiveness.

Theoretical Perspectives on Incremental Value of Organization Personality Perceptions

Researchers in marketing have distinguished between two types of brand attributes:

Those that serve an instrumental function, and those that serve a symbolic function. Instrumental

attributes are objective and tangible characteristics that have functional value, and therefore

allow users to derive maximum value from their possessions. For example, an individual may

choose to buy a personal computer because of its fast processor and large storage capacity.

Symbolic functions, on the other hand, are less tangible, but they have expressive value. That is,

they allow the users to express their personalities or increase their self-esteem. For example, an

individual may want to purchase the same personal computer because of its sleek design and

popularity among young professionals—characteristics that are consistent with the individual's

self-concept (Shamir, 1991). Increasing the symbolic value of a product allows the product to


achieve brand equity, thereby increasing the company's status and credibility and allowing the

company to charge a premium for those products.

Several authors have drawn important parallels between buying products and joining

organizations. These authors have suggested that the process of joining and identifying with a

new organization can allow individuals to accommodate not only instrumental needs (e.g.,

income), but symbolic needs as well (e.g., increasing self-esteem). Drawing on social identity

theory, Dutton et al. (1994) proposed that people seek to maintain a positive self-concept by

joining organizations that they believe the public views favorably. When individuals work for an

organization that has a favorable reputation, they are proposed to "bask in the reflected glory" of

the company's status (Cialdini, Borden, Walker, Freeman, & Sloan, 1976). Organizations with

favorable reputations have recruitment equity which allows them to attract a larger and higher-

quality applicant pool (e.g., Fombrun, 1996).

Lievens and Highhouse (2003) applied the instrumental-symbolic framework to studying

organizational attractiveness. These researchers found that perceptions of banks' personality

traits (i.e., sincerity, innovativeness, competence, prestige, and robustness) explained variance in

organizational attractiveness, over and above perceptions of job characteristics (i.e., pay,

advancement, job security, task demands, location, customers, benefits, and flexible working

hours). Therefore, in addition to the theoretical propositions based on social identity theory,

some empirical work has already provided evidence of the importance of perceptions of

organizational personality in predicting organizational attractiveness over and above the

utilitarian value of joining the organization. However, participants in this study described

organization personality using Aaker's (1997) brand personality scale, which had not been

validated for describing organizations. Lievens and Highhouse reported that of Aaker's 42


original items, only 15 could be retained because the remaining items' low factor loadings

contributed to poor model fit in confirmatory factor analyses. The applicability of Aaker's brand

personality dimensions to the task of describing organizations is therefore somewhat

questionable. The sample of organization in the Lievens and Highhouse study was also limited

to five Belgian banks, and the banks differed significantly on only three of Aaker's five

personality scales. The authors recommended that future research be extended to other cultures

and industries.

Thus, the second purpose of this study was to determine whether personality trait

inferences about organizations explain incremental variance in attraction, over and above the

assessment of traditional job and organizational attributes. We sought to extend previous

research using a validated measure of organization personality perceptions, in the United States,

and with a more diverse set of organizations.

On the basis of the theory and research reviewed above, we hypothesized the following.

Hypothesis 2. Organization personality perceptions will explain significant variance in

organizational attractiveness, controlling for perceptions of objective job and

organizational characteristics.

Person-Organization Fit

Research on person-organization (P-O) fit has prospered over the last 15 years. This is

especially true in the time that has passed since Kristof's (1996) review paper, which sought to

integrate and clarify the previous literature on the topic. Kristof defined P-O fit as the

compatibility between people and organizations when either entity provides something that the

other one needs, when people and organizations share similar characteristics, or both. Given the

proliferation of P-O fit research, it is somewhat surprising that little research has actually


examined the value of P-O fit to attracting applicants at the early stages of recruitment, or what

Schneider (1987) termed the attraction phase of his attraction-selection-attrition model (i.e., the

initial attraction of individuals to organizations). Previous research on the effects of P-O fit in

recruitment has tested either the influence of subjective fit perceptions on ultimate job choice

decisions (e.g., Cable & Judge, 1996) or the interaction between self-reported characteristics and

preferences for organizations that differ on experimentally manipulated characteristics of

hypothetical organizations (e.g., Bretz, Ash, & Dreher, 1989; Lievens, Decaesteker, Coetsier, &

Geirnaert, 2001; Turban & Keon, 1993). Therefore, this portion of the study contributes to the

literature in two ways. First, it contributes to the literature on organization image by studying

interactions between perceived organization traits and self-rated personality. As a result, we will

be able to understand why some organization personality traits matter more to some types of

individuals and less to others. Second, we investigate the early effects of P-O fit with real

organizations that are highly recognizable and familiar to participants. Below, we discuss each

of the organization personality characteristics, and the human personality traits that we expected

to moderate the relation between organization personality perceptions and attraction.

Although there may be a number of different human personality dimensions that interact

with organization personality perceptions, we have limited our focus to the Big Five Personality

characteristics: Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness to

Experience. Although there is some disagreement on the exact number of dimensions of human

personality (Block, 1995), the Big Five taxonomy is commonly accepted (Judge & Cable, 1997)

and the five-factor structure has been found to replicate across national cultures and different

rater sources (Salgado, 1997; Saucier & Goldberg, 2002).


Proposed Self-Rated Personality x Organization Personality Interactions

The Boy Scout Dimension. As described above, companies that are perceived as strong

on the Boy Scout dimension are perceived to possess such traits as being friendly, attentive to

people, pleasant, family-oriented, cooperative, and helpful. Individuals who are likely to

perceive High-Boy Scout organizations as attractive places to work are likely either to (a)

possess traits that are similar to their perceptions of the organization's traits, or (b) have

behavioral tendencies that lead them to prefer environments that have these characteristics.

Individuals who are highly agreeable tend to be more cheerful and talkative (Fiske,

1949), good-natured (Tupes & Christal, 1961, Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967), friendly, cooperative

(Costa & McCrae, 1992), and generally more flexible, caring, and courteous (Mount & Barrick,

1995). Individuals who are high on agreeableness also tend to be somewhat more dependent and

self-effacing (Bernardin, Cooke, & Villanova, 2000). Agreeableness has also been linked to a

motivation to maintain positive relations with others, which may in turn involve a willingness to

suspend one individual's interests for the good of the social group (Buss, 1992; Koole, Jager, van

den Berg, Vlek, & Hofstee, 2001). Because persons who are highly agreeable manifest these

tendencies, we expect them to be more attuned to the degree to which an organization possesses

traits that comprise the Boy Scout dimension. For example, because highly agreeable

individuals tend to be more dependent, cheerful, and self-effacing, they may prefer to be in a

friendlier work environment that is less likely to exploit their good nature.

Individuals high on Conscientiousness may also prefer being in a friendly and

cooperative environment. As argued and supported by LePine and Van Dyne (2001),

Conscientiousness is positively related to cooperative and friendly behaviors because

conscientious people recognize that by being cooperative, they are able to accomplish more.


Additionally, some researchers argue that integrity is a facet of Conscientiousness (Collins &

Schmidt, 1993; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993) which measures, among others traits,

carefulness, personal values, and sense of duty (Collins & Schmidt, 1993). As such, highly

conscientious individuals may be more attracted to organizations that are perceived as being

family-oriented, helpful, and honest because these would be consistent with their personal values

and sense of duty, responsibility, and integrity. Taken together, we predict that highly

conscientious individuals would prefer working in an organization that is high on the Boy Scout

factor because it is consistent with their cooperative, friendly, and honest values.

Hypothesis 3(a-b): Agreeableness and Conscientiousness will moderate the relation

between Boy Scout perceptions and attraction to the organization. The positive relation

between Boy Scout and organizational attraction will be stronger for individuals who (a)

are more agreeable and (b) are more conscientious.

The Innovativeness Dimension. Companies higher on the Innovativeness dimension are

perceived to more interesting, exciting, unique, creative, and original. Certain types of

individuals will be more attracted to companies they perceive to be innovative because the

company's innovativeness matches their self-concept or enhances their self-esteem (Dutton et al.,

1994; Shamir, 1991). For example, conscientious individuals are careful, thorough, hard-

working, and ambitious (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Conscientious persons tend to thrive in

environments where the work is difficult, as they tend to set more difficult goals for themselves

(Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993; Gellatly, 1996; Judge & Ilies, 2002). Companies are

perceived to be innovative because of pioneering ideas for products or services that ultimately

help them to be successful, and these ideas commonly are the products of long hours of hard

work by industrious employees (Hayes, 2003; King, 1998). Therefore, for a conscientious


individual, the possibility of joining a company perceived as innovative matches the person's

tendency toward, and desire for, hard work.

Openness to Experience has been described as the most difficult of the Big Five to

identify, primarily because it has been given so many different labels by personality and

personnel psychologists, from Culture to Intellect to Openness (Borgatta, 1964; Hakel, 1974;

Hogan, 1983; McCrae & Costa, 1985). Traits associated with this dimension are being

imaginative, cultured, curious, and intellectual. Because this trait reflects positive attitudes

toward learning, Openness to Experience has been shown to be related to training proficiency

(Barrick & Mount, 1991), performance in multi-stage training programs (Herold, Davis, Fedor,

& Parsons, 2002), and wisdom-related performance (Staudinger, Maciel, Smith, & Baltes, 1998).

Because companies perceived as innovative are likely to present constant opportunities for

learning—new products, new markets, new job tasks, and new jobs—we expected the relation

between perceived innovativeness and attraction to be stronger for individuals who are highly

open to experience. Furthermore, individuals higher on Openness to Experience are likely to see

companies high on the innovative factor as being more similar to themselves because both are

viewed as original, artistic, and creative. Consistent with this rationale, research indicates that

there is a positive relation between Openness to Experience and innovation (Kwang &

Rodrigues, 2003) and between Openness to Experience and creativity (King, McKee, & Broyles,

1996).

Hypothesis 4(a-b): Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience will each moderate

the relation between Innovativeness perceptions and attraction to the organization. The

relation between Innovativeness and organizational attraction will be stronger for

individuals who (a) are more conscientious and (b) are more open to experience.


The Dominance Dimension. Companies perceived as being strong on this dimension are

described as successful, popular, dominant, busy, and active. This personality characteristic

captures perceived success, high revenue, and sustained growth.

Individuals who are extraverted tend to be more talkative, gregarious, outgoing, sociable,

and assertive (Borgatta, 1964; Costa & McCrae, 1992). In highly dominant organizations, it

appears necessary to be somewhat extraverted. Because in larger companies employees are

forced to compete with many other employees for recognition, resources, and rewards, introverts

would seem to be at somewhat of a disadvantage. Moreover, because extraverts are motivated

by economic rewards (Gray, 1987), extraverts may even enjoy such competition. Extraverts also

tend to have vocational interests that are enterprising (Barrick, Mount, & Gupta, 2003). Because

extraverts are assertive, active, and bold, they should perceive themselves to be more similar to

organizations that are higher on the dominance factor.

Hypothesis 5: Extraversion will moderate the relation between Dominance perceptions and

attraction to the organization. The relation between Dominance and organizational

attraction will be stronger for individuals who are more extraverted.

The Thrift Dimension. Companies perceived as more thrifty are described as being low

budget, low class, simple, reduced, sloppy, poor, undersized, and deprived. Slaughter et al. (in

press, study 3) found that K-Mart, Kroger, Wal-Mart, Subway, Bob Evans, Meijer, and J. C.

Penney were all rated highly on this dimension. Thus, this dimension reflects individuals'

perceptions of frugality, because high ratings on Thrift are generally given to firms that offer

discounted products and services.

Because Thrift tends to be negatively related to organizational attractiveness, it is fruitful

to consider the kinds of job seekers that would be most likely to be repelled by organizations


high on this dimension, and to whom these characteristics matter less. It is also important to

consider what it is about a "Thrifty" organization that leads individuals to find it a less attractive

place to work. Although this is somewhat speculative, it seems reasonable that individuals are

repelled from highly Thrifty organizations because (a) they believe that the organization has a

poor image in the minds of others, (b) they anticipate having to deal with difficult, low-

socioeconomic status clientele, and/or (c) they anticipate certain negative characteristics about

their potential peers, supervisors, and/or subordinates.

Because they tend to be ambitious (Costa & McCrae, 1992) individuals who are highly

conscientious may be less likely to be attracted to high-Thrift organizations. It is likely that

individuals who are highly ambitious prefer not to be associated with organizations that have a

negative image, because it may be damaging to their self-concept. Moreover, highly

conscientious persons may anticipate that they will differ sharply from other people with whom

they will have contact at highly Thrifty organizations.

For the same reason, we would also expect to find stronger negative relations between

Thrift perceptions and attractiveness among individuals who are highly extraverted and among

individuals who are highly agreeable. Because extraverts are outgoing and sociable (Barrick &

Mount, 1991), it is likely that they derive a considerable portion of their job satisfaction from

interaction with others (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). Moreover, because organization

perceived to be high on Thrift may require interactions with unpleasant people, they would be

particularly unattractive to extraverts. Finally, because individuals who are highly agreeable

likely prefer to interact with others who are similarly cheerful, they may also evidence stronger

negative relations between perceptions of Thrift and organizational attractiveness.


Hypothesis 6 (a-c): Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness will each

moderate the relation between Thrift perceptions and attraction to the organization. The

negative relation between Thrift and organizational attraction will be stronger for

individuals who (a) are more conscientious, (b) are more extraverted, and (c) are more

agreeable.

The Style Dimension. Returning to Appendix A, note that organizations described as

being strong on the Style Dimension are described as being relatively more stylish, fashionable,

hip, and trendy. Individuals who would find stylish organizations more attractive are likely those

who are more impressed by "surface" characteristics than characteristics that are more deeply

rooted (e.g., Innovativeness). Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that one personality

characteristic in particular will interact with Style perceptions—Openness to Experience.

Openness to Experience reflects one's tendency toward being intellectual, philosophical,

and deep (McCrae, 1994). Conventional wisdom suggests that highly intellectual persons are

less stylish, and highly stylish individuals are less intellectual. For individuals who are highly

open to experience, therefore, it would seem as though the degree to which an organization is

perceived as stylish would have little bearing on whether the organization is perceived as

attractive. Individuals high on openness to experience also tend to describe themselves as

original and nonconforming (Barrick & Mount, 1991). For persons who are less open to

experience, then, it is reasonable to predict that the traits that comprise the Style dimension

would more strongly influence their attraction.

Hypothesis 7: Openness to Experience will moderate the relation between Style perceptions

and attraction to the organization. The relation between Style and organizational attraction

will be stronger for individuals who are lower on openness to experience.


Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were undergraduate students enrolled in a single, large introductory

psychology course at a large university in the southeastern United States. Participants agreed to

participate in exchange for course credit. All data collection took place during regular class

time.

Data were collected at three time periods. Surveys were matched across time periods

using participant social security numbers. Participants completed a measure of the Big Five

personality traits and a measure of job attribute preferences at Time 1. Data were collected from

828 participants at Time 1. At Time 2, 777 participants returned (93.8% of the original 828) to

rate an organization—to which they were randomly assigned—on perceptions of available job

opportunities at the organization, on perceptions of job attributes, and on perceived organization

personality characteristics. At Time 3, 752 participants returned (96.7% of the previous 777,

90.8% of the original 828) and rated their randomly-assigned organization (the same randomly

assigned organization as at Time 2) on various measures of organizational attraction. Elapsed

time between each data collection session was exactly two weeks. Individuals who returned for

the final data collection session did not differ from those who did not return on age, gender,

grade point average, number of full time or part time jobs held, or whether the participants were

currently employed (p > .05). The final sample of 752 participants was 67% female and ranged

in age from 18 to 50 (M = 19.2, SD = 2.09). On average, they had held one full-time job and two

part time jobs. Students majored in 64 different fields of study, with the largest concentrations in

biological sciences, psychology, nursing, kinesiology, and business.


Time 1 Measures

Big Five Personality Characteristics. The Big Five Personality Traits—Agreeableness,

Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience—were

measured with Saucier's (1994) 40-item measure (8 items per personality variable). This is a

short version of Goldberg's (1992) 100-item measure in which many of the more difficult items

to understand (e.g., imperturbable, imperceptive) and root-negation pairs (e.g., kind-unkind)

were eliminated. Individuals indicated the degree to which each of 40 adjectives accurately

described their personalities (1 = highly inaccurate; 5 = highly accurate). Example trait

adjectives were: kind (Agreeableness), organized (Conscientiousness), talkative (Extraversion),

relaxed (Emotional Stability), and philosophical (Openness to Experience).

Job Attribute Preferences. Participants rated 14 job attributes on the degree to which

they perceived the attribute would be important "in a decision of whether or not to take a job

offer," using a 5-point scale (1 = very unimportant; 5 = very important). Twelve of these

attributes were taken from a categorization derived by Konrad, Ritchie, Lieb, and Corrigall

(2000) in a recent meta-analysis of sex differences on attribute preferences. These attributes are

listed in Appendix B. We also conducted a small pilot study to determine whether there were

other attributes that were not mentioned in the Konrad et al. paper but that could be influential in

job choice. Undergraduate psychology students (N = 244, 68% female, 84% White) at a large,

Southeastern university were asked to indicate up to seven job attributes that they felt would be

important characteristics when seeking a full-time job. Phrases that were mentioned often and

did not overlap with the previous list could be subsumed under the categories "interesting work"

and "dress code." Therefore, we added these to the previous list of 12, for a total of 14 attributes.


Time 2 Measures

At Time 2, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 23 Fortune 100 organizations.

These organizations were determined to be highly recognizable and familiar to college students

in a pilot study conducted by Slaughter et al. (in press). Because we were surveying a similarly

diverse audience, we used the same 23 organizations as had been used in previous research.

These organizations are presented in Appendix C. Participants were instructed to pay close

attention to the organization they were asked to rate at Time 2, because they would be asked to

recall that organization during Time 3 data collection and to write the name of the company on

their surveys. The organization was again listed on the last page of the survey; participants were

encouraged to take that page with them to increase the probability that they would remember the

organization in two weeks. However, 16 of the 752 participants that returned for Time 3 (2.2%)

did not recall the correct company. Data for those individuals were removed from analyses.

Organization Personality Perceptions. Participants were asked to rate their agreement (1

= strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) with the degree to which each of the 33 traits listed in

Appendix A described their randomly-assigned organization.

Perceptions of Job Attributes at the Assigned Organization. On the same job attributes

for which participants provided importance ratings at Time 1, participants indicated their

perceptions of how favorably their assigned company compared to other organizations, using a

5-point scale (1 = considerably below average; 5 = considerably above average).

Perceptions of Job Opportunities at the Organization. Naturally, we were concerned that

individuals' early attraction to a particular organization would be influenced heavily by the

degree to which they perceived that there were job opportunities for them at the company.

Therefore, we measured participants' perceptions of job opportunities at the assigned


organization using a 3-item scale developed specifically for this research. The items were:

"People with degrees in my area could be employed by this organization," "There are job

opportunities for me at this organization," and "This organization hires people with training

similar to my own training."

Time 3 Measures

Attraction, Intentions, and Company Reputation. Participants completed three scales

adapted from a validity study by Highhouse, Lievens, and Sinar (2003). Each scale consisted of

three items. With respect to the company to which they were randomly assigned—and which

they were asked to recall and report prior to providing their ratings—participants rated their

attraction to the company as a place to work (e.g., "This company is attractive to me as a place

for employment"), their future intentions toward the company (e.g., "I would make this company

one of my first choices as an employer"), and their perceptions of the company's reputation (e.g.,

"This is a reputable company to work for"). All responses were made on a five-point scale of

agreement (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).

Likelihood of Accepting a Job Offer. Participants also indicated the likelihood that they

would accept an offer of employment at the organization, if one were made. This variable was

measured on an 11-point scale, from 0% to 100%, with anchors at each 10% interval.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Other Preliminary Analyses

Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and estimated reliability coefficients of all

study variables are presented in Table 1. Inspection of Table 1 reveals that self-rated personality

variables were moderately intercorrelated, as were the organization personality variables, but the

correlations were not high enough to warrant concerns about a lack of discriminant validity.


Of interest in the latter third of the table are the three boxed portions. The boxed portion

on the bottom right includes relations between the organization personality perceptions variables

and the four attraction variables. Note that the correlations in this box are similar in magnitude

to the lower-left boxed portion of the table, which contains relations between perceived job

attributes and attraction. Note also that all of the correlations between organization personality

variables and organizational attraction variables were statistically significant, indicating support

for Hypotheses 1a-1e. Finally, it is also interesting to note the relations between perceived job

attributes and organization personality perceptions, which are presented in the upper-left hand

portion of the box. Notably, the personality perceptions are moderately correlated with

perceptions of salary, opportunities for leadership, promotion, freedom and autonomy, prestige,

challenging work, flexibility of work schedules, interesting work, and friendliness of coworkers

and supervisors.

Between-Company Differences on Objective Attributes, Personality, and Attractiveness

Next, we analyzed between-company differences on perceptions of job attributes,

personality characteristics, and organizational attractiveness. To examine this, we first

conducted three multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs), one for each set of attributes. It

is interesting to note that at this early stage, when we are only studying company knowledge and

perceptions and not recruitment per se, companies were perceived to differ to a greater extent on

personality variables, Wilks' Λ = .31, F = 8.41, p < .001, η2 = .21, than on perceived objective

job attributes, Wilks' Λ = .27, F = 3.07, p < .001, η2 = .09. Moreover, this is clearly not because

there are no differences between these organizations on perceived attributes; it is simply that the

differences are smaller than they are for personality variables. The organizations also differed on

the set of attraction variables, Wilks' Λ = .69, F = 3.10, p < .001, η2 = .09.


Individual ANOVAs showed that the companies were perceived to differ on Boy Scout,

F (22, 708) = 7.45, p < .001, η2 = .19; Innovativeness, F (22, 708) = 15.87, p < .001, η2 = .33;

Dominance, F (22, 710) = 12.79, p < .001, η2 = .28; Thrift, F (22, 706) = 13.92, p < .001, η2 =

.30; and Style, F (22, 710) = 11.85, p < .001, η2 = .27. There were significant between company

differences on each of the attraction variables and on 12 of the 14 job attributes. The only job

attributes on which the companies were not perceived to differ were Dress Code and Supervisor.

Because of space limitations, we do not report the results of the remaining ANOVAs, Tukey's

HSD tests, or means by company. These results are available on request from the first author.

The next set of analyses was focused on testing Hypothesis 2. We conducted four-stage

hierarchical regression analyses for each of the four attraction-related variables (attraction,

intentions, reputation, and likelihood of accepting a job offer). In the first step, we entered the

variable that represented perceptions of job opportunities at the organization. In the second step,

we entered the 14 variables that reflected individuals' perceptions of job attribute availability and

the 14 variables that reflected individuals' importance ratings of those attributes. In the third

step, we entered 14 interaction terms created by multiplying importance ratings x perceptions of

attribute availability. In the fourth and final step, we entered the five organization personality

perceptions variables.

The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 2-5. Organizational personality

perceptions (step 4) as a set explained a significant proportion of variance in attraction to the

organization, intentions to pursue a position with the organization, and reputation as a place to

work, but not in estimated likelihood of accepting a job offer. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was only

partially supported. It is interesting to note that, after controlling for the variables entered in

steps 1-3, the coefficient for Dominance is actually significant and negative in three of the


analyses (in contrast to the zero-order correlations, which suggest positive relationships between

dominance and attraction). Finally, it is also important to note that the regression coefficients

were significant only for a portion of the personality variables; Style and Innovativeness were

not significant in any of the analyses. It is also worth noting, however, that these analyses were

extremely conservative. More than 40 other variables were entered into the analysis before we

entered the organization personality perceptions, because we wanted to control for all other

potential influences on initial attraction to organizations before entering the personality

perceptions variables. Yet, for 3 of the 4 attraction variables, the set of organizational

personality perceptions accounted for a significant proportion of incremental variance.

Next, we tested Hypotheses 3-7, which predicted self-rated personality by organization

personality perception interactions on attractiveness. For this portion of the analyses, we

included only those individuals who had marked at least a "3" on each of the items that inquired

about perceived opportunities at the organization. If an individual perceives very weak

opportunities for employment at an organization, it seems unlikely that his or her self-rated

personality would interact with organization personality perceptions to influence attraction.

Elimination of these individuals left us with 371 participants for hypothesis testing. We also

used only three of the four original criterion variables—Attraction, Intentions, and Likelihood of

Accepting an Offer. An individual's personality should only influence that person's perception of

the organization as a place to work. Personal characteristics would not be expected to influence

individuals' perceptions of what others think (i.e., reputation). Finally, we created the necessary

interaction terms by multiplying the appropriate self-rated personality variable by the appropriate

organization personality variable. For example, Hypothesis 3a specified an Agreeableness x Boy

Scout interaction. To create the interaction term for this hypothesis, we multiplied the


Agreeableness variable by the Boy Scout variable. For each hypothesis, the main effects (self-

rated personality and organization personality) were entered on the first step, and the interaction

term was entered on the second.

Results of the moderated regression analyses are presented in Table 6. Because of space

limitations, we present only the tests for increases in R2 on the second step of each analysis,

when the interaction term was entered. Complete results of all analyses are available on request

from the first author.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that the relation between Boy Scout and attractiveness variables

would be moderated by self-rated (a) Agreeableness and (b) Conscientiousness. Inspection of

Table 6 reveals that the Boy Scout x Agreeableness interaction did not explain significant

incremental variance in any of the attraction measures. Therefore, Hypothesis 3a was not

supported. Table 6 also shows, however, that the Boy Scout x Conscientiousness interaction

explained significant incremental variance in intentions and acceptance likelihood, and that this

interaction term was marginally significant (p = .076) for explaining attraction. Therefore,

Hypothesis 3b was partially supported.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that the relation between innovativeness and attraction would be

moderated by (a) Conscientiousness and (b) Openness to Experience. Table 6 shows that the

Innovativeness x Conscientiousness interaction explained significant incremental variance in

acceptance likelihood, that this interaction was marginally significant for explaining intentions,

and that this interaction was significant in explaining attraction. Table 6 also shows that the

Innovativeness x Openness to Experience interaction explained significant incremental variance

in intention, but not attraction or acceptance likelihood. Therefore, Hypotheses 4a and 4b were

partially supported.


Hypotheses 5, which predicted a Dominance x Extraversion interaction, was not

supported. Hypothesis 6 concerned the interaction between (a) Thrift and Conscientiousness, (b)

Thrift and Extraversion, and (c) Thrift and Agreeableness. Hypotheses 6a, 6b, and 6c were all at

least partially supported. Table 6 shows that all three interaction terms explained significant

variance in reported likelihood of accepting a job offer. For organizational attraction, the Thrift

x Conscientiousness interaction and the Thrift x Extraversion interactions were statistically

significant, and the Thrift x Agreeableness interaction was marginally significant (p = .095).

Hypothesis 7 predicted that the relation between Style and attraction variables would be

moderated by Openness to Experience. Inspection of Table 6 reveals that Hypothesis 7 was

partially supported. The Style x Openness interaction was significant for predicting Intentions,

and was marginally significant for predicting Attraction and Acceptance Likelihood.

Next, we examined the form of the statistically significant and marginally significant

interactions to determine whether the moderation we observed was in the same direction as we

had predicted. For each of the personality variables that moderated the specific relationships, we

split the sample into high-variable and low-variable groups, and then determined whether the

differences in relationships between organization personality perceptions and attraction variables

were consistent with what we expected. For example, Table 6 shows that Conscientiousness

moderated the relationship between Boy Scout perceptions and Attraction, Intentions, and

Acceptance Likelihood. Therefore, we split the sample into High-Conscientiousness and Low-

Conscientiousness groups, and found that the Boy Scout-Attraction relationship was stronger

among highly conscientious individuals (r = .38, p < .001) than among less conscientious

individuals (r = .29, p < .001). The Boy Scout-Intentions relationship was also stronger among

highly conscientious individuals (r = .28, p < .001) than among less conscientious individuals (r


= .17, p < .05), as was the Boy Scout-Acceptance likelihood relationship (r = .24 vs. r = .14).

We performed similar analyses for all of the interactions observed.

The results of these analyses are presented in Table 7. Inspection of Table 7 shows that

the differences in the magnitude of the correlations across personality groups were as expected.

For example, the relation between Innovativeness and Intentions was stronger among those who

were more conscientious (r = .30) than those who were less conscientious (r = .17). There was

one exception, however. We had predicted (H4b) that the relation between perceived

Innovativeness and attraction would be higher among individuals who were highly open to

experience. In fact, analyses showed that this relationship was actually stronger among

individuals who reported being less open to experience.

We further examined support for Hypotheses 3-7 by graphing a portion of the significant

interactions, following the procedures outline by Aiken and West (1991). We ran separate

regression analyses for the low- and high- self-rated personality groups, and then plotted the

regression lines at -1 SD and +1 SD for each organization personality variable. For example,

Figure 1 shows the Conscientiousness x Boy Scout interaction predicting intentions to join the

organization. Figure 1 shows that, when individuals perceive the organization to be low on Boy

Scout-related traits, individuals who are highly conscientious report lower intentions (M = 2.73)

than those who are less conscientious (M = 3.10), F (1, 174) = 4.02, p < .05, η2 = .02. However,

because those who are more conscientious are more attuned to Boy Scout traits, the slope for the

highly conscientious group is much larger (b = .45) than for the less conscientious group (b =

.22). Thus, when individuals perceive the organization to be high on Boy Scout-related traits,

there is no difference between reported intentions of the Low-Conscientiousness (M = 3.37) and

High-Conscientiousness (M = 3.29) groups, F (1, 158) = 0.12, p > .05.


We also graphed several additional interactions, which are depicted in Figures 2-7.

Figure 2 represents the interaction of Innovativeness and Conscientiousness in the prediction of

Likelihood of Acceptance, Figure 3 represents the interaction of Extraversion and Thrift

predicting Attraction, and Figure 4 represents the interaction of Extraversion and Thrift

predicting Likelihood of Acceptance. Note that, just as in Figure 1, the slopes are stronger for

individuals who would be more desirable job applicants (i.e., those who are highly conscientious,

highly extraverted, or highly agreeable). Also note, however, that these more desirable

applicants are far less attracted to organizations that are perceived to have less desirable

personalities: The lowest mean level of attraction is reported by individuals who are highly

conscientious and perceive low levels of Boy Scout traits, those who are highly conscientious

and perceive lower Innovativeness, those who are highly extraverted and perceive the

organization to be high on Thrift, and those who are highly agreeable and perceive high Thrift.

Therefore, individuals with more desirable personality traits are strongly repelled by

organizations with low levels of desirable personality traits, but their attraction to an organization

is more likely to increase as the personality of the organization improves.

The exception to this pattern of findings is the interaction with the Style dimension. As

Figure 5 shows, when the organization was perceived to be low on Style, individuals low on

Openness to Experience reported weaker intentions to join the organization than those who were

highly open to experience, but the slope of the regression line was stronger for individuals low

on Openness.

Discussion

In a recent call for new research directions in the area of employee recruitment, Cable

and Turban (2001) noted that:


…the majority of recruitment research that has discussed the antecedents of job choice

decisions has focused on job attributes, with a minority of attention devoted to job

seekers' knowledge about organization…a job-based approach to recruitment is

analogous to emphasizing product attributes (which other firms can replicate) over brand

image, and therefore appears to be incomplete from a marketing perspective (p. 148,

italics in original).

The present investigation was designed to heed this call for more research on what potential job

seekers know, or what they think they know, about organizations before the recruitment process

begins. Below, we discuss outcomes of tests of the study's hypotheses, the limitations of this

investigation, and ideas about where this line of research might proceed in the future.

Test of Hypotheses

The first major purpose of this investigation was to replicate and extend findings by

Slaughter et al. (in press), that organization personality perceptions are related to organizational

attraction (Hypothesis 1). This was supported, as the personality perceptions variables each had

significant zero-order correlations with each of the attraction variables: attraction, intentions,

reputation, and likelihood of accepting a job offer.

The second major purpose of this investigation was to determine whether personality trait

inferences about organizations explain variance in attraction, over and above perceptions of

objective job and organizational attributes (Hypothesis 2). Partial support for Hypothesis 2 was

observed, because incremental variance was explained in attraction, intentions, and reputation,

but not in likelihood of accepting a job offer. It is worth noting that the largest proportion of

incremental variance explained was for reputation (e.g., "This is a reputable company to work

for," This company probably has a reputation as being an excellent employer."). This is


consistent with Slaughter et al.'s (in press) definition of the organization personality construct,

who specified its meaning as something that is "public and verifiable…it is concerned with the

amount of esteem, regard, or status afforded a person by outsiders" (p. 10).

Organization personality perceptions, therefore, may have a slightly stronger—or more

proximal—influence on what individuals believe others think about a company than their

perceptions of the attractiveness of jobs at the organization. Although we did not clearly

conceptualize any causal ordering of the variables, we did return to the data and test for a

mediating influence of reputation in the relationship between personality perceptions and

attraction. When testing each of the personality perceptions variables separately, we found

support for partial mediation in each case: Reputation partially mediates the relation between

Boy Scout perceptions and Attraction, Reputation partially mediates relation between

Innovativeness and Attraction, and so forth. This conceptualization of mediation appears quite

tenable and is consistent with social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989): Individuals have

certain perceptions about an organization's traits, which influences their beliefs about the

organization's reputation in the eyes of the public, which in turn influences their attitudes toward

seeking employment. Individuals find jobs at organizations with stronger reputations more

attractive because it increases their self-esteem and social status (Cialdini et al., 1976; Dutton et

al., 1994).

The null findings for likelihood of job offer acceptance are also important, however.

They suggest that, after controlling for job attributes, trait inferences about organizations are

perhaps more useful for explaining initial attraction to an organization than for determining

whether or not an individual accepts a job. This early attraction is critical, however, because if

an individual does not take an initial interest in the organization, it is impossible for the


organization to increase its attractiveness to that applicant via recruitment (Rynes, 1991). Cable

and Turban (2001) proposed that existing knowledge or beliefs about an employer, in addition to

influencing initial attractiveness, may also have a direct influence on a job seeker's interpretation

of recruitment or selection activities. For example, a recruiter who asks tough questions and

represents an organization with a positive reputation may be perceived as "selective," whereas

the same questions may be perceived as "pushy" if the recruiter represents an organization with a

negative reputation.

One potential limitation with the tests of Hypothesis 2 is that the proportion of

incremental variance explained by trait inferences could be considered rather small (∆R2 = .01-

.06). However, it is important to note that these really were very conservative tests because so

many variables were controlled for before the personality perceptions were entered on the fourth

step of the regression analyses. Certainly, it would have been possible to ensure that more

variance was accounted for by controlling for fewer variables, or by intentionally omitting

variables from the regression equation that would be highly correlated with attraction variables

(e.g., salary). We consciously attempted to control for all variables that might have explained

variance in initial organizational attraction to ensure that the variance explained by the

personality perceptions was truly incremental variance.

It also is interesting to note that the sign for the Dominance dimension actually reversed

from a positive bivariate correlation to a negative regression weight when entered on the final

step with the other personality perceptions variables. This pattern is similar to the one observed

by Slaughter et al. (in press), who found that the sign for Dominance became nonsignificant and

negative in the prediction of attraction and job pursuit intentions when Dominance was entered

into the regression equation with the other four personality perceptions variables. It is possible


that when a number of other influences on organizational attractiveness are controlled for,

seemingly more dominant organizations actually become less attractive in the eyes of job

seekers. This also highlights the importance of considering organization personality perceptions

as a set rather than individually.

In future research, perhaps another way to study the incremental value of personality

perceptions in a more controlled setting might be with a laboratory investigation involving job

postings or job advertisements. Participants could be exposed to one of several advertisements

or postings, each of which describes the exact same job in terms of objective job attributes, but

the position involves working at one of several firms with very different personalities (e.g.,

Coca-Cola versus Allstate versus Wal-Mart). If differences in participant-rated organization

personality perceptions and organizational attractiveness are observed, we can be even more

confident about the incremental value of organization personality perceptions, because the

objective job attributes are controlled for experimentally, rather than statistically.

The remainder of the hypotheses concerned the moderating effects of self-rated

personality on the relation between organization personality perceptions and attraction variables.

Although several of these hypotheses were supported, the forms of the interactions are somewhat

different from what we expected. That is, we hypothesized self-rated personality x organization

personality perceptions interactions because we expected that, for individuals who have certain

personality characteristics (e.g., Conscientiousness), there would be stronger relationships

between certain organization personality characteristics (e.g., Boy Scout) and attraction. As a

result, we also expected that, for individuals whose personality characteristics "fit" with their

perceptions of the personality characteristic of the organization, we would observe especially

strong attraction. Although we did observe the expected differences in relationships across


different levels of self-rated personality (see Table 7), we did not observe stronger attraction as a

result of stronger fit. Rather, we observed much weaker attraction as a result of weaker fit. As

we noted when discussing the graphed interactions, the weakest attraction was observed when

individuals had high levels of certain personality characteristics, and they perceived that the

organization had low levels of similar personality characteristics. This suggests that, in

determining initial attraction to the organization, lack of P-O fit may be more damaging than

strong P-O fit is helpful. For example, our results suggest that companies that are not very

innovative will be most unattractive to individuals who are highly conscientious, and companies

that are highly Thrifty will be most unattractive to those who are highly extraverted.

Although the proposed interaction effects were based on existing personality theory and

research, and they are useful for understanding why beliefs about organizational traits are more

important to some people than they are to others, these effects could also be characterized as

rather small. The majority of the interaction effects accounted for about one percent of the

incremental variance. However, it is important to note that these interactions constitute objective

fit: They are a statistical combination of individual and (albeit) perceived organizational

attributes. In the future, researchers interested in P-O fit based on organization personality

perceptions would probably be wise to measure participants' subjective fit perceptions as well.

Kristof (1996) noted that the perception of congruence is a more proximal influence on actual

decision making. Judge and Cable (1997) found that subjective perceptions of fit mediated the

relation between objective fit and organizational attraction. It is interesting to note, in fact, that

one of Judge and Cable's subjective fit items was, "Do you think the values and 'personality' of

this organization reflect your own values and personality?" (p. 374). This suggests that job

seekers' perceptions of P-O fit may be based in part on perceptions of similarity of personality.


Additional Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

One limitation of the present investigation is that individuals' rating of the attraction

variables was a relatively costless exercise in terms of the time and effort required. However, it

is important to note that our interest in this study was in fact individuals' initial attraction to the

company to which they were assigned, without having been exposed to any other information

about that company. Although feeling initial attraction to a company is in fact very much

without cost, if individuals are not at least initially attracted, the possibility of increasing their

levels of attraction further is highly limited.

Another limitation of the present investigation was the potential for common method

bias, because each participant rated his or her own personality, and also rated the organization on

personality variables, job attributes, and attractiveness. However, we did attempt to mitigate this

by separating data collection efforts by two weeks. Moreover, common method bias would

explain direct (main) effects, but not necessarily the interaction between self-rated personal

characteristics and organization personality perceptions on attraction.

Slaughter et al. (in press) argued that organization personality perceptions may be formed

based on little or no formal contact with the company, and might in fact be formed on the basis

of marketing or advertising, or even simply social information (e.g., word-of-mouth information

from individuals who have had formal contact with the company or its products). Although we

still maintain this position, we concede that it is probably also the case that the relation between

organization personality perceptions and attraction is moderated by familiarity, and perhaps

amount of formal contact, with the organization. For example, using Aaker's (1997) brand

personality scale, Lievens and Highhouse (2003) found that organization personality accounted

for twice as much incremental variance (over and above perceptions of job attributes) in an


employed-persons sample than in a student sample (∆R2 = .18 vs. .09). This underscores the

need for future research with the organization personality perceptions scale (OPPS) with

individuals who have work experience and are highly familiar with multiple firms in a single

industry.

Cable and Turban (2001) noted that it is difficult to understand what applicant attraction

is rooted in or based upon. The results of the present investigation suggest that initial

organizational attractiveness is based on a number of different perceptions, including the degree

to which jobs are available, level of job attributes, and perceptions of the firm's personality. The

second part of our study showed that the relations between specific organization characteristics

and attraction are moderated by the job seekers' characteristics. We believe that the next major

steps in this line of research are to create a model of job seekers' initial attraction to firms that

brings together all of these pieces, and attempts to understand how these perceptions are initially

formed and how all of the pieces fit together. For example, the post-hoc analyses we discussed

above showed that reputation mediates the relation between personality perceptions and

attraction. In addition, it is worthwhile noting that there were moderate relationships between

the organization personality perceptions and perceptions of several of the job attributes. It would

be interesting to study perceptions about job attributes as mediators of the organization

personality-organizational attraction relationship.


References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347-

356.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

Management Review, 14, 20-29.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Gupta, R. (2003). Meta-analysis of the relationship between

the five-factor model of personality and Holland’s occupational types. Personnel

Psychology, 56, 45-74.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of

sale representatives: Test of mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied


Bernardin, J. H., Cooke, D. K., & Villanova, P. (2000). Conscientiousness and agreeableness as

predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 232-236.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 187-215.

Bretz, R. D., Jr., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. F. (1989). Do the people make the place? An

examination of the attraction-selection-attrition hypothesis. Personnel Psychology,

42, 561-581.

Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science, 9, 8-17.


Breaugh, J. A. (1992). Recruitment: Science and practice. Belmont, CA: Kent.

Buss, D. M. (1992). Manipulation in close relationships: Five personality factors in

interactional context. Journal of Personality, 60, 477-499.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and

organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294-

311.

Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2001). Establishing the dimensions, sources, and value of job

seekers' employer knowledge during recruitment. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in

personnel and human resources management (pp. 115-163). Amsterdam: Elsevier

Science.

Callcott, M. F., & Phillips, B. J. (1996). Observations: Elves make good cookies: Creating

likable spokes-character advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 36, 73-78.

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in

reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social


Collins, J. M., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Personality, integrity, and white collar crime: A

construct validity study. Personnel Psychology, 46, 295-311.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO

five-factor (NEO-FFI) inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member

identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.

Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different

sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.


Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing the value from corporate image. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.

Gatewood, R. D., Gowan, M. A., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (1993). Corporate image, recruitment

image, and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 414-427.

Gellatly, I. R. (1996). Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of cognitive process

model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 474-482.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.

Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hakel, M. (1974). Normative personality factors recovered from ratings of personality

descriptors: The beholder’s eye. Personnel Psychology, 27, 409-421.

Hayes, F. (2003). Boom & bust blues. Computerworld, 37 (19), 56.

Hayes, J. B. (2000). Antecedents and consequences of brand personality. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi.

Herold, D. M., Davis, W., Fedor, D. B., & Parsons, C. K. (2002). Dispositional influences on

transfer of learning in multistage training programs. Personnel Psychology, 55, 851-869.

Highhouse, S., & Hoffman, J. R. (2001). Organizational attraction and job choice. In C. L.

Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational

psychology (v. 16, pp. 37-64). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 986-1001.


Highhouse, S., Zickar, M. J., Thorsteinson, T. J., Stierwalt, S. L., & Slaughter, J. E. (1999).

Assessing company employment image: An example in the fast-food industry. Personnel


Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and

organizational attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-394.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job

satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A

meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.

King, J. (1998). Long hours, cold dinners, and vacation interruptus. Computerworld, 32 (41), 1-

2.

King, L. A., McKee, L. W., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model.

Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 189-203.

Kwang, N. A., & Rodrigues, D. (2002). A Big Five personality profile of the adapter and

innovator. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 254-268.

Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Jr., Lieb, P., & Corrigal, E. (2000). Sex differences and

similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126,

593-641.

Koole, S. l., Jager, W.,& van den Berg, A. E., (2001). On the social nature of personality:

Effects of extraversion, agreeableness, and feedback about collective resource use on

cooperation in a resource dilemma. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 289-

301.


Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,

measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of

contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with the Big Five

personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326-

336.

Lievens F., Decaesteker C., Coetsier, P., & Geirnaert J. (2001). Organizational attractiveness for

prospective applicants: A person-organization fit perspective. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 50, 30-51.

Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a

company's attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology, 56, 75-102.

McCrae R. R. (1994). Openness to Experience: Expanding the boundaries of Factor V.

European Journal of Personality, 8, 251-272.

Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The big five personality dimensions: Implications for

research and practice in human resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in

Personnel and Human Resources Management (vol. 13, pp. 153-200). Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated

factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social


Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of

integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of

job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.


Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new

research directions. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial

and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 399-444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five-factor model of personality and job performance in the European

community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar Big-Five markers.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506-516.

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2002). Assessing the Big Five: Applications of 10 psychometric

criteria to the development of marker scales. In B. de Raad (Ed.), Big Five assessment

(pp. 30-54). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update.

Personnel Psychology, 48, 747-773.

Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self, and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12,

405-424.

Slaughter, J. E., Zickar, M. J., Highhouse, S., & Mohr, D. C. (in press). Personality trait

inferences about organizations: Development of a measure and assessment of construct

validity. Journal of Applied Psychology.

Smith, G. M. (1967). Usefulness of peer ratings of personality in educational research.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, 967-984.

Spence, A. M. (1974). Market signaling: Informational transfer in hiring and related screening

processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.


Staudinger, U. M., Maciel, A. G., & Smith, J. (1998). What predicts wisdom0related

performance? A first look at personality, intelligence, and facilitative experiential

contexts. European Journal of Personality, 12 1-17.

Strausbaugh, K. L. (1999). “Miss Congeniality’ or ‘no more Mr. Nice Guy?” on a method for

assessing brand personality and building brand personality profiles. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings.

(Technical report No. ASD-TR 61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force.

Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactional

perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 184-193.


Appendix A

Personality Items from Slaughter et al. (in press)

Boy Scout Factor Thrift Factor Friendly Low Budget Attentive to People Low Class Pleasant Simple Family-Oriented Reduced Cooperative Sloppy Personal Poor Helpful Undersized Clean Deprived Honest

Innovativeness Factor

Style Factor Interesting Stylish

Exciting Fashionable

Unique Hip Creative Trendy Boringa Plaina Original Dominance Factor

Successful Popular Dominant Busy Active

a Reverse coded


Appendix B

Job Attributes from Konrad et al. (2000)

Income Challenging Work

Opportunity Work Hours

Power and Authority Easy Commute

Opportunities for Promotion Geographic Location

Freedom and Autonomy Coworkers

Prestige and Recognition Supervisor


Appendix C

Organizations Rated

Allstate Johnson & Johnson

American Express K-Mart

AT&T Microsoft

Coca-Cola Motorola

Dell Pepsi

Exxon Sprint

Ford State Farm

General Electric Target

General Motors Verizon

Home Depot Wal Mart

IBM Walt Disney

JC Penney


Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Major Study Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 231. Sex . 0.33 7 -- 0.4 2. Age 0 9 15 --

e 6 1 24 37 -- e 3 4 01 21 07 --

19.2 2.0 3. Full Tim 0.9 1.2 4. Part Tim 2.3 1.4 5. Conscientious 3.68 0.65 -23 -03 02 -02 816. Agreeableness 4.12 0.52 -21 -09 -08 00 24 797. Extraversion 3.49 0.69 -17 -00 02 10 15 09 838. Openness 3.74 0.56 13 03 06 -00 06 08 00 759. Import Salary 4.36 0.66 -01 01 -02 02 05 00 10 03 --10. Import Leader 3.91 0.78 -05 -03 04 07 22 08 25 14 30 -- 11. Import Power 3.67 0.91 02 -05 00 01 07 -08 18 08 40 56 -- 12. Import Promotion 4.24 0.66 -03 01 02 08 07 11 12 09 40 43 49 -- 13. Import Auto 4.07 0.71 03 03 02 03 -04 -04 05 13 13 17 25 34 -- 14. Import Prestige 3.76 0.93 -03 -04 -08 02 07 07 08 03 30 27 42 34 31 -- 15. Import Challenge 3.59 0.81 -05 05 03 -05 12 07 03 22 -02 40 18 19 14 21 -- 16. Import Flexibility 4.19 0.78 -07 00 03 09 06 08 07 02 13 10 12 21 33 19 12 -- 17. Import Commute 3.80 0.88 -07 -06 -04 03 10 13 -03 00 07 -00 04 07 15 12 08 38 -- 18. Import Location 3.77 0.95 -07 -02 -05 -02 07 06 -01 02 10 10 10 12 13 14 16 23 57 -- 19. Import Interest 4.39 0.65 -10 -06 -07 -01 06 07 08 16 11 24 20 25 23 18 31 19 15 23 -- 20. Import Dress 2.74 1.09 10 -02 -00 -03 -19 -14 -05 00 -11 -14 -06 -03 16 02 -01 14 17 15 07 -- 21. Import Coworker 3.87 0.83 -12 -05 -04 10 03 15 17 -03 04 08 13 17 12 15 06 21 25 18 20 19 -- 22. Import Supervise 3.95 0.85 -12 -05 -04 10 05 11 14 03 06 11 14 15 09 10 04 16 20 19 16 06 53 -- 23. Opportunity 3.15 1.06 09 02 03 04 02 04 07 -01 09 06 06 07 -01 01 -01 01 05 05 -00 -02 01 05 83Note. Table Includes data only from participants who were present at all 3 data collection sessions. Because of missing data, n for

correlations ranges from 698 to 732. Reliabilities for scales presented on diagonal. Correlations > |.07| are significant at p < .05; correlations

> |.10| are significant at p < .01. Decimals omitted from correlations for clarity.


Table 1 (continued)


Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2324. Org Salary 3.36 0.68 -01 -02 -03 01 01 09 02 -00 01 05 02 04 07 04 -04 00 -00 -04 04 -06 05 03 0225. Org Leader 3.43 0.72 -07 -01 -01 -04 08 07 06 -02 02 08 07 08 03 07 04 01 01 -04 03 -06 04 01 0826. Org Power 3.47 0.85 -11 -05 01 -01 08 06 02 -06 02 07 07 02 -00 09 01 01 08 05 04 -02 06 02 0127. Org Promotion 3.47 0.77 -04 -02 -03 01 07 05 08 -05 05 07 08 10 00 10 02 -03 -00 -01 03 -03 05 02 1228. Org Autonomy 3.10 0.76 -13 -04 -02 -01 08 02 10 -05 -01 03 07 01 01 07 -05 -01 03 -01 04 -01 02 04 1029. Org Prestige 3.51 1.02 -06 -05 02 02 06 04 06 01 -02 03 04 -01 00 04 -05 -01 07 02 05 -06 04 05 0530. Org Challenge 3.11 1.01 04 -02 -01 -02 02 05 03 -01 -01 06 05 01 -05 02 -07 01 05 03 -05 -02 00 -02 0331. Org Flexibility 3.06 0.75 -10 -04 -04 -05 12 07 02 -02 -03 05 02 00 -04 03 10 02 04 -03 07 02 06 09 1132. Org Commute 3.20 0.74 -11 -04 -07 04 04 05 09 -08 -00 -02 -03 -02 -00 00 02 06 07 -03 06 01 05 00 1433. Org Location 3.45 0.80 -05 -01 -01 00 03 03 06 -03 03 06 05 01 -03 02 08 02 00 00 08 -05 04 -03 1434. Org Interest 3.10 1.09 03 01 -01 -07 05 05 03 -02 04 08 07 02 01 05 00 -03 00 -00 03 -03 04 -01 1135. Org Dress 2.81 0.88 -02 03 -04 -06 -01 -04 00 00 03 05 04 02 04 -03 -01 05 02 00 07 08 01 -01 -0336. Org Coworker 3.33 0.70 -11 -05 -13 -04 13 08 05 -07 06 09 06 05 -01 01 10 -01 04 06 09 -04 05 -02 1537. Org Supervisor 3.40 0.76 -17 -08 -14 -06 15 16 07 -10 08 09 08 10 -01 06 08 -02 08 02 05 -08 10 05 1438. Boy Scout 3.61 0.61 -14 -13 -06 -03 16 19 08 -07 05 11 09 06 01 13 02 -02 11 04 07 -07 07 07 1639. Innovativeness 3.37 0.74 -12 -01 -01 -03 13 14 10 -09 07 06 07 05 -02 11 -05 -04 05 03 03 -06 05 02 0940. Dominance 3.99 0.65 -08 -02 -02 -04 13 12 10 03 09 10 05 -08 04 05 03 -05 02 02 05 -09 04 04 1141. Thrift 1.84 0.72 07 03 -04 -04 -11 -15 -10 -06 -06 -07 -04 05 -04 -05 -02 -01 -00 03 -07 09 -03 -05 -0342. Style 3.19 0.97 -03 -01 00 -00 07 05 05 -07 05 06 05 05 -03 07 -01 -02 04 04 03 -03 03 02 1343. Attraction 2.85 1.03 15 -04 -01 -01 -00 01 04 -05 05 05 06 05 -00 07 -09 -00 03 -03 -02 -01 02 06 2644. Intentions 2.90 0.96 18 -05 -01 -01 -05 -02 00 01 06 02 06 05 -03 01 -11 00 05 -02 -07 -03 01 05 2845. Reputation 3.70 0.77 01 -02 -00 -01 09 12 09 03 -01 08 06 05 02 04 -02 -01 -00 -06 07 -11 05 05 0746. Chances 48.74 28.22 16 -03 02 -02 -10 -04 02 02 10 03 09 11 -02 02 -09 02 06 -01 -04 -01 -01 04 25 Note. Table Includes data only from participants who were present at all 3 data collection sessions. Because of missing data, n for

correlations ranges from 698 to 732. Correlations > |.07| are significant at p < .05; correlations > |.10| are significant at p < .01. Decimals

omitted from correlations for clarity.


Table 1 (continued)


Variable 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4624. Org Salary - - 25. Org Leader 9 --

r 8 2 -- n 4 5 7 -- y 0 9 1 4 --

8 5 4 3 44 --

5 26. Org Powe 4 6 27. Org Promotio 4 5 5 28. Org Autonom

e 3 2 3 3

29. Org Prestig 4 4 5 4 30. Org Challenge 45 44 43 36 30 52 --31. Org Flexibility 12 10 13 18 29 14 04 --32. Org Commute 03 00 01 03 16 -02 -08 35 --33. Org Location 11 07 11 14 16 05 -02 25 51 --34. Org Interest 43 42 39 38 29 51 58 04 -04 09 -- 35. Org Dress 03 -01 05 01 08 08 08 11 01 04 02 -- 36. Org Coworker 21 25 23 26 23 25 21 15 18 14 29 05 -- 37. Org Supervisor 22 27 26 29 21 24 20 15 14 09 29 -06 65 -- 38. Boy Scout 27 30 24 27 30 31 18 17 10 13 29 03 31 28 87 39. Innovativeness 35 34 33 32 31 39 32 10 -01 08 45 -00 32 26 50 88 40. Dominance 33 34 37 30 13 32 25 10 02 12 28 00 25 20 38 43 77 41. Thrift -39 -37 -34 -31 -12 -35 -27 -02 00 -07 -29 03 -17 -16 -37 -44 -56 9142. Style 18 18 21 21 23 26 18 07 07 10 26 04 24 17 33 52 28 -30 94 43. Attraction 30 32 25 30 19 33 37 07 -03 01 44 03 23 18 33 36 20 -26 26 93 44. Intentions 29 28 23 27 16 30 35 04 -06 03 38 05 17 14 24 24 15 -21 20 78 87 45. Reputation 42 42 37 38 25 45 39 06 -06 05 45 01 21 19 43 41 36 -40 25 52 49 87 46. Chances 27 25 22 24 13 30 33 04 -05 01 34 04 16 12 18 21 14 -20 15 68 80 44 -- Note. Table Includes data only from participants who were present at all 3 data collection sessions. Because of missing data, n for

correlations ranges from 698 to 732. Reliabilities for scales presented on diagonal. Correlations > |.07| are significant at p < .05; correlations

> |.10| are significant at p < .01. Decimals omitted from correlations for clarity.


Table 2

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Attraction

Variables Entered β at entry β in final model ∆R2 step R2

Step 1 Opportunity .26*** .21*** .07*** .07*** Step 2 Org Salary .05 -.02 Org Leadership .08 -.21 Org Power -.07 -.31* Org Promotion .08 .35 Org Freedom -.04 -.33 Org Prestige .08 .31* Org Challenge .10* .08 Org Hours .03 -.09 Org Commute -.03 -.08 Org Location -.06 -.23 Org Interesting .25*** .16 Org Dress .02 .06 Org Coworker .12** .08 Org Supervisor -.06 -.36* Imp Salary -.01 -.05 Imp Leadership .03 -.22 Imp Power -.01 -.25 Imp Promotion .00 .20 Imp Freedom -.02 -.19 Imp Prestige .07 .26* Imp Challenge -.07 -.09 Imp Hours -.01 -.08 Imp Commute .05 -.01 Imp Location -.07 -.25 Imp Interesting -.02 -.04 Imp Dress .03 .13 Imp Coworker -.05 -.07 Imp Supervisor .07 -.22 .24*** .31*** Step 3 Int Salary .10 .08 Int Leadership .36 .36 Int Power .38 .38 Int Promotion -.39 -.38 Int Freedom .27 .33 Int Prestige -.35 -.35* Int Challenge .11 .05 Int Hours .18 .13 Int Commute .16 .08 Int Location .20 .25 Int Interesting .16 .05 Int Dress -.17 -.12 Int Coworker .09 .05 Int Supervisor .35 .41 .02 .33*** Step 4 Boy Scout .14** .14** Dominance -.09* -.09* Innovativeness .07 .07 Thrift -.06 -.06 Style .06 .06 .03*** .36*** Note. Standardized coefficients presented. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001


Table 3

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Intentions


Step 1 Opportunity .27*** .24*** .07*** .07*** Step 2 Org Salary .09* -.08 Org Leadership .02 -.09 Org Power -.04 -.34* Org Promotion .08 .23 Org Freedom -.04 -.06 Org Prestige .08 .21 Org Challenge .12 .27 Org Hours .01 .11 Org Commute -.09* -.33* Org Location .02 -.07 Org Interesting .18*** .17 Org Dress .04 .17 Org Coworker .07 -.11 Org Supervisor -.06 -.23 Imp Salary .02 -.10 Imp Leadership -.02 -.10 Imp Power .03 -.29 Imp Promotion .03 .14 Imp Freedom -.03 -.03 Imp Prestige -.01 .11 Imp Challenge -.07 .04 Imp Hours .01 .08 Imp Commute .08 -.16 Imp Location -.07 -.15 Imp Interesting -.06 .06 Imp Dress .00 .19 Imp Coworker -.02 -.20 Imp Supervisor .05 -.11 .20*** .27*** Step 3 Int Salary .24 .21 Int Leadership .11 .12 Int Power .49*** .50* Int Promotion -.25 -.21 Int Freedom -.02 .01 Int Prestige -.21 -.19 Int Challenge -.14 -.17 Int Hours -.12 -.13 Int Commute .38 .35 Int Location .08 .11 Int Interesting .08 .01 Int Dress -.30* - .27 Int Coworker .27 .27 Int Supervisor .20 .23 .02 .29*** Step 4 Boy Scout .08 .08 Dominance -.10* -.10* Innovativeness -.04 -.04 Thrift -.05 -.05 Style .07 .07 .01* .30*** Note. Standardized coefficients presented. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001


Table 4

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Reputation


Step 1 Opportunity .07 .01 .01 .01 Step 2 Org Salary .11** .06 Org Leadership .09 .09 Org Power .00 -.17 Org Promotion .10* .52 Org Freedom .01 -.47 Org Prestige .18*** .02 Org Challenge .05 .10 Org Hours -.02 .17 Org Commute -.06 -.09 Org Location .01 -.09 Org Interesting .19*** -.12 Org Dress -.02 -.02 Org Coworker .06 .01 Org Supervisor -.05 -.07 Imp Salary -.06 -.08 Imp Leadership .04 .07 Imp Power -.01 -.18 Imp Promotion .01 .31* Imp Freedom .01 -.31* Imp Prestige .02 -.12 Imp Challenge -.03 .00 Imp Hours .00 .18 Imp Commute .05 -.01 Imp Location -.08 -.06 Imp Interesting .06 -.04 Imp Dress -.08* -.02 Imp Coworker .01 -.04 Imp Supervisor .04 .02 .34*** .35*** Step 3 Int Salary -.01 .02 Int Leadership -.01 -.07 Int Power .30 .26 Int Promotion -.54*** -.56* Int Freedom .45* .57** Int Prestige .17 .15 Int Challenge -.05 -.04 Int Hours -.24 -.27 Int Commute .15 .04 Int Location .06 .13 Int Interesting .40 .28 Int Dress -.02 -.01 Int Coworker .01 .04 Int Supervisor .01 .02 .02 .36*** Step 4 Boy Scout .23*** .23*** Dominance .04 .04 Innovativeness .04 .04 Thrift -.09* -.09* Style -.02 -.02 .06*** .43*** Note. Standardized coefficients presented. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001


Table 5

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Likelihood of Accepting a Job Offer


Step 1 Opportunity .24*** .22*** .06*** .06*** Step 2 Org Salary .09* .00 Org Leadership .00 -.46* Org Power -.01 -.31 Org Promotion .05 .18 Org Freedom -.06 -.09 Org Prestige -.10* .28 Org Challenge .15** .33* Org Hours .02 .12 Org Commute -.07 -.07 Org Location -.01 -.18 Org Interesting .13** .15 Org Dress .02 .09 Org Coworker .09 .03 Org Supervisor -.07 -.40* Imp Salary .05 -.03 Imp Leadership -.03 -.43* Imp Power .04 -.27 Imp Promotion .10* .20 Imp Freedom -.03 -.05 Imp Prestige -.02 .15 Imp Challenge -.06 .07 Imp Hours .01 .08 Imp Commute .09 .10 Imp Location -.07 -.24 Imp Interesting -.04 -.04 Imp Dress .02 .13 Imp Coworker -.06 -.13 Imp Supervisor .04 -.27 .19*** .24*** Step 3 Int Salary .18 .13 Int Leadership .62* .63* Int Power .46* .47* Int Promotion -.23 -.20 Int Freedom .02 .03 Int Prestige -.27 -.26 Int Challenge -.18 -.21 Int Hours -.14 -.14 Int Commute .01 -.01 Int Location .22 .24 Int Interesting .04 .01 Int Dress -.18 -.16 Int Coworker .12 -.11 Int Supervisor .42 .45 .03* .27*** Step 4 Boy Scout .04 .04 Dominance -.10* -.10* Innovativeness -.01 -.01 Thrift -.05 -.05 Style .03 .03 .01 .28*** Note. Standardized coefficients presented. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001


Table 6 Summary of Predicted Interactions Between Self-Rated Personality and Organization Personality

Hypothesis

Attraction Measure

Interaction Term

∆R2

∆F

p

3a Attraction Boy Scout x Agreeableness .00 0.01 .918

Intentions Boy Scout x Agreeableness .00 0.55 .459

Acceptance Likelihood Boy Scout x Agreeableness .00 0.42 .516

3b Attraction Boy Scout x Conscientiousness .01 3.16 .076

Intentions Boy Scout x Conscientiousness .02 5.78 .017

Acceptance Likelihood Boy Scout x Conscientiousness .01 4.28 .039

4a Attraction Innovativeness x Conscientiousness .00 1.49 .223

Intentions Innovativeness x Conscientiousness .01 3.75 .054

Acceptance Likelihood Innovativeness x Conscientiousness .02 6.64 .010

4b Attraction Innovativeness x Openness .01 2.61 .107

Intentions Innovativeness x Openness .01 4.02 .046

Acceptance Likelihood Innovativeness x Openness .01 2.23 .136

5 Attraction Dominance x Extraversion .00 0.70 .405

Intentions Dominance x Extraversion .00 0.52 .472

Acceptance Likelihood Dominance x Extraversion .00 0.02 .902

6a Attraction Thrift x Conscientiousness .02 5.96 .015

Intentions Thrift x Conscientiousness .01 2.97 .086

Acceptance Likelihood Thrift x Conscientiousness .03 10.70 .001

6b Attraction Thrift x Extraversion .02 6.35 .001

Intentions Thrift x Extraversion .01 5.29 .022

Acceptance Likelihood Thrift x Extraversion .01 4.71 .031


Table 6 (continued) Summary of Predicted Interactions Between Self-Rated Personality and Organization Personality

Hypothesis

Attraction Measure

Interaction Term

∆R2

∆F

p

6c Attraction Thrift x Agreeableness .01 2.80 .095

Intentions Thrift x Agreeableness .00 0.32 .572

Acceptance Likelihood Thrift x Agreeableness .01 5.31 .022

7 Attraction Style x Openness .01 3.51 .062

Intentions Style x Openness .01 4.21 .041

Acceptance Likelihood Style x Openness .01 3.67 .056


Table 7

Correlations Between Personality Perceptions and Attraction for Observed Interactions

Hypothesis Personality

Variable Attraction Variable

Personality Group

Low Conscientiousness High Conscientiousness

3b Boy Scout Attraction .29 .38 3b Boy Scout Intentions .17 .28 3b Boy Scout Acceptance .14 .24 4a Innovativeness Intentions .17 .30 4a Innovativeness Acceptance .08 .27 6a Thrift Attraction -.19 -.38 6a Thrift Intentions -.21 -.28 6a Thrift Acceptance -.08 -.28 Low Extraversion High Extraversion

6b Thrift Attraction -.15 -.38 6b Thrift Intentions -.05 -.37 6b Thrift Acceptance -.03 -.31 Low Agreeableness High Agreeableness

6c Thrift Attraction -.21 -.33 6c Thrift Acceptance -.06 -.31 Low Openness High Openness

4b Innovativeness Intentions .28 .16 7 Style Attraction .29 .16 7 Style Intentions .21 .06 7 Style Acceptance .13 .03


Figure Captions

Figure 1. Boy Scout x Conscientiousness Interaction Predicting Intentions.

Figure 2. Innovativeness x Conscientiousness Interaction Predicting Likelihood of Acceptance.

Figure 3. Thrift x Extraversion Interaction Predicting Attraction.

Figure 4. Thrift x Agreeableness Interaction Predicting Likelihood of Acceptance.

Figure 5. Style x Openness Interaction Predicting Intentions.


1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

-1 SD Boy Scout +1 SD Boy Scout

LowConscientiousness

HighConscientiousness


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-1 SDInnovativeness

+1 SDInnovativeness

LowConscientiousness

HighConscientiousness


1

2

3

4

5

-1 SD Thrift +1 SD Thrift

Low Extraversion

High Extraversion


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-1 SD Thrift +1 SD Thrift

Low Agreeableness

High Agreeableness


1

2

3

4

5

-1 SD Style +1 SD Style

Low Openness

High Openness

Running Head: INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE ON PERSONALITY · adjectives from a variety of scales...

Documents

Transcript of Running Head: INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE ON PERSONALITY · adjectives from a variety of scales...