The Process Mechanisms Linking Recruiter Positive Moods and Organizational Attraction

The Process Mechanisms Linking RecruiterPositive Moods and Organizational Attraction

Chien-Cheng Chen*, Chi-Sheng Hsu** and Pei-Shan Tsai**

*National Taipei University of Technology, 1, Sec. 3, Chung-hsiao E. Rd., Taipei, 10608, [email protected]**National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

The main purpose of this study is to investigate the mechanisms through which recruit-ers’ positive moods lead to organizational attraction. Participants consisted of 161applicant–recruiter dyads from 55 companies in Taiwan. Results show that recruiters’ feltpositive moods were positively related to applicant’s perceptions of informativeness andcompetence, which, in turn, influenced organizational attraction. In addition, recruitersfelt that positive moods were positively related to their display of positive moods, whichwere positively related to applicant’s positive moods, which, in turn, affected organiza-tional attraction.

1. Introduction

Despite the economic upturns and downturns, ithas become increasingly important for organ-

izations to make themselves stand out from theircompetitors so that they are seen as attractiveemployers for prospective applicants (Chapman,Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005). Greatercompetition among organizations seeking to hire andretain talented employees has pressed upon organiza-tions the need to ensure that recruiters cultivate inthe minds of applicants an attraction to the given orga-nization after an employment interview. Because re-cruiters play a key role in communicating informationabout their organization and its unfilled positions, re-searchers and practitioners have started to realize justhow important recruiters are in the overall recruit-ment process (Carless & Wintle, 2007).

Several theories can be used to explain why recruit-ers are critical in shaping applicant attraction to their re-spective organizations. For example, the elaborationlikelihood model (ELM) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) distin-guishes among the basic processes involved in interper-sonal communications between central processing ofinformation (i.e., careful consideration) and peripheralprocessing of information (i.e., superficial attention). Be-cause applicants have a limited ability to accuratelyevaluate unfilled job positions and their correspondingorganizations owing to the applicants’ minimal previouscontact with the given organization and to the consider-

able anxiety of employment interviews, applicants aremore likely to pay superficial attention (i.e., to engage inperipheral processing) than to pay careful consideration(i.e., to engage in central processing) regarding a recruit-er’s organization (Larsen & Phillips, 2002). In this situ-ation, recruiter characteristics will emerge as salientcues when applicants are evaluating the overall attrac-tiveness of an organization. In addition, critical contacttheory (Behling, Labovitz, & Geiner, 1968) asserts thatapplicants, because they have limited contact with po-tential employers, may be especially likely to view therecruiter as a salient representative of the organizationand to use the recruiter’s behavior as a template for in-ferring the attributes of the job and the organization.Signaling theory (Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991) sug-gests that in the absence of complete information re-garding a job vacancy and its target organization,applicants are likely to make inferences about unknownorganizational and job attributes on the basis of obser-vations made during the recruitment process. Thus, re-cruiter behaviors often serve as signals of what otherorganizational members are like, as well as what the or-ganization itself is like (Rynes, 1989). Drawing from thetheories above, we would expect that recruiter charac-teristics serve as important cues for applicants and thatthese cues, in turn, influence attraction to recruiting or-ganizations.

Although past research has consistently confirmedthat recruiters’ characteristics (e.g., personableness, in-formativeness, and competence) influence organizational

bs_b

s_ba

nner

International Journal of Selection and Assessment Volume 21 Number 4 December 2013

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA

mailto:[email protected]

attractiveness perceived by applicants (e.g., Chapmanet al., 2005), recruitment research has seldom ad-dressed recruiters’ during-interview affective states,such as positive moods. Furthermore, we do not yetfully understand the intricacies embedded within themechanisms to precisely model how recruiters’ positivemoods lead to organizational attraction. Research byseveral scholars has paved a way toward filling in thesegaps. For example, research has found that people whoare in highly positive moods will have higher self-confidence regarding their task performance (e.g., Gist& Mitchell, 1992) and will be more likely to display help-ing behaviors toward others (e.g., George, 1991) thanpeople who exhibit lowly positive moods. In addition,individuals’ display of emotions can influence others’mood states and perceived friendliness by the emotionalcontagion process (e.g., Tsai, 2001; Tsai & Huang, 2002).Taken together, the above research findings seem toimply that recruiters with positive moods will be per-ceived as competent, personable, willing to help throughthe sharing of information, and good at gratifying applic-ants. As past research has commonly acknowledgedthese processes, induced by recruiter positive moods,to be important determinants of organizational attrac-tion, an implication is that recruiter positive moodscan influence organizational attraction through theseprocesses.

The present study integrates previous research in de-veloping a model that explains how and why a recruit-er’s positive mood can foster organizational attraction.1

Social influence theory (Ferris et al., 2002), which pro-poses that people can maximize the rewards and mini-mize the negative outcomes they hope to receive bysocial interaction, may help explain the effect of recruit-ers’ positive moods on organizational attraction. Ac-

cording to social influence theory, recruiters’ moodstates can trigger elements in applicants’ cognitive struc-tures (more specifically, can trigger applicants’ beliefsand values about what the right type of recruiter is) andcan elicit emotional reactions from the applicants. Al-though the present model is not meant to test social in-fluence theory, the process variables examined in thepresent study (e.g., competence, informativeness, per-sonableness, and applicant positive moods) can perhapsbe considered forms of social influence processes thatresult from recruiters’ positive mood states. Theseforms of social influence can then lead applicants to per-ceive the organization in question as highly attractive.The theoretical model is presented in Figure 1.

To our knowledge, only two studies have touched onthis issue by testing the effects of recruiter’s positive af-fect on organizational attractiveness within the employ-ment interview context (i.e., Powell, 1991; Rynes &Miller, 1983). Both of the studies found evidence thatrecruiters with high positive affect can strengthenapplicants’ perceptions of organizational attractiveness.The present study extends previous research in threeways. First, previous studies collected data from labora-tory research (Rynes & Miller, 1983) and from inter-view simulations involving college students searching forjobs through their college placement offices (Powell,1991), whereas this study took place in a field settinginvolving real recruiters and real applicants. Because theoutcomes of the interviews used in the present studyhave real-world implications for the recruiters as wellas the applicants, the motivation of participants is diffi-cult to replicate in an experimental setting or in an in-terview simulation (Higgins & Judge, 2004). Second, incontrast to the works of Powell (1991) and Rynes andMiller (1983), where friendly behaviors were used to

Recruiter’s felt and displayed moods Applicant perceptions Organizational attraction

H3, H5(.70**)

H4, H6(.70**)

H2(.15†)

H1(.22*)

H3, H4(.31**)

H1(.14†)

H2(.47**)

H5(-.13)

H6(.30**)

Recruiter’sdisplayedpositivemoods

Recruiter’sfelt positive

moods

Positivemoods

Informativeness

Personableness

Competence

Organizationalattraction

Figure 1. Hypotheses and path coefficients for the proposed model (Model 1). Standardized path coefficients are in parentheses.Note: †p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.

Recruiter Positive Moods 377

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd International Journal of Selection and AssessmentVolume 21 Number 4 December 2013

represent the construct of positive affect, this study fo-cuses on a more precise conceptualization of the posit-ive affect construct (i.e., positive moods). Third, neitherPowell (1991) nor Rynes and Miller (1983) examinedthe process mechanisms between recruiters’ positiveaffect and organizational attractiveness. The presentstudy, according to our knowledge, represents one ofthe first attempts to empirically test the related cognit-ive and affective mechanisms simultaneously in oneresearch design, thus contributes to a deeper under-standing of recruiter mood effects by answering ques-tions about the how and why aspects of the underlyingtheory building (Whetten, 1989).

2. Theory

2.1. Perceived informativeness and competenceas process variables

In the current study, we propose that recruiters’ feltpositive moods will be positively related to applicants’perceptions of informativeness and competence, which,in turn, will be positively related to organizational at-traction. Past empirical research has generally foundevidence that people with high positive moods will dis-play more helping behaviors than people with low posi-tive moods (e.g., Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch,& Rhoades, 2001; Tsai, Chen, & Liu, 2007). A meta-analysis by Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener (2005)showed an uncorrected correlation of .37 betweenpositive moods and interpersonal helping. Therefore, weexpect that recruiters with highly positive moods will bemore likely than recruiters with lowly positive moods tohelp applicants during employment interviews by, forexample, providing substantive information about thegiven job vacancy or about the company. This relayedinformation will raise the applicants’ perception of therecruiters’ informativeness.

Past empirical research has generally found thatpeople who are in good moods easily recall the excel-lent performance they ever had (i.e., mood congruentmemory effects; Bower, 1981), and use their goodmoods as cues to evaluate their past accomplishments(i.e., mood as information effects; Schwarz & Clore,1988). This raises their confidence about their abilityto complete tasks and makes them look professionaland competent. Past research has consistently foundthat happy people are more likely to be judged ascompetent than are unhappy people (e.g., Diener &Fujita, 1995; Harker & Keltner, 2001). Thus, we expectthat the higher a recruiter’s mood, the higher therecruiter’s confidence will be in his (or her) ownhandling of interviews, thus raising the applicants’ per-ceptions of the recruiter’s competence regarding inter-view handling.

Past research has indicated that applicants who per-ceive recruiters as competent and willing to shareinformation are relatively likely to evaluate the organiza-tion as attractive (e.g., Harris & Fink, 1987). For ex-ample, a competent recruiter who demonstratesexpertise may become a symbol of general organiza-tional efficiency (Rynes, 1991). A recruiter providingconsiderable information about an unfilled position andthe organization itself is more likely than an uninforma-tive recruiter to signal an organizational climate of mu-tual assistance and shared information, leading applicantsto have positive perceptions of the unfilled position (as-suming the information is positive) and of the organiza-tion as a whole (Turban, Forret, & Hendrickson, 1998).In a meta-analysis by Chapman et al. (2005) examiningthe relationship between recruitment predictors and ap-plicant attraction, applicant organizational attraction wasfound to correlate positively with recruiter informative-ness and competence (corrected r = .31 and .29 for in-formativeness and competence, respectively; bothps < .05). Taking these findings together, we propose thefollowing hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Recruiters’ felt positive moods will bepositively related to applicants’ perceptions of the re-cruiters’ informativeness, which, in turn, will be posi-tively related to applicants’ perception of organizations’attractiveness.

Hypothesis 2: Recruiters’ felt positive moods will bepositively related to applicant’s perceptions of the re-cruiters’ competence, which, in turn, will be positivelyrelated to applicants’ perception of organizations’attractiveness.

2.2. Recruiters’ display of positive mood as aprocess variable

We propose that recruiters’ felt positive moods will bepositively related to the recruiters’ display of positivemoods, which, in turn, will be positively related toapplicants’ perception that the recruiters are person-able. Scholars have argued that individuals often uninten-tionally reveal their true emotions, usually through facialexpressions, vocalizations, postures, and movements(Ekman, 1985). Even when people attempt to concealtheir emotions, ‘True feelings leak out through the be-havioral channels that are less controllable’ (Ambady &Rosenthal, 1992, p. 259). Research has provided evid-ence that individuals’ felt moods can be positively re-lated to the individuals’ display of moods (e.g., Ekman,Friesen, & Ancoli, 1980; Rosenberg & Ekman, 1994;Ruch, 1987; Winkielman & Cacioppo, 2001). In a meta-analysis based on 11 studies, Matsumoto (1987) foundthat the relationship between experienced emotion andemotional expression was consistently significant acrossstudies.

378 Chien-Cheng Chen, Chi-Sheng Hsu and Pei-Shan Tsai

International Journal of Selection and AssessmentVolume 21 Number 4 December 2013

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

When recruiters’ positive moods are displayed,applicants might sense them and interpret them as signsof personableness (e.g., Clark & Taraban, 1991). In gen-eral, people who express positive moods are perceivedas likeable and courteous (Barger & Grandey, 2006).Tsai and Huang (2002) found that the more positive anemployee’s expressed emotions are, the likelier custom-ers will be to perceive the employee as friendly. In thecontext of employment interviews, it is possible that thepositive moods displayed by recruiters meet or exceedapplicant expectations for how they should be treated,thus leading to high personableness evaluations byapplicants. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Recruiters’ felt positive moods will bepositively related to the recruiters’ display of positivemoods, which, in turn, will be positively related toapplicants’ perceived personableness of recruiters.

In addition, through an emotional contagion process(Hess, Philippot, & Blairy, 1998), recruiters’ displayedpositive moods can initiate positive moods in applicants.Emotional contagion refers to an individual’s tendencyto ‘mimic and synchronize facial expressions, vocaliza-tions, postures, and movements with those of anotherperson and, consequently, to converge emotionally’(Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994, p. 5). It occurs be-cause people tend to synchronize and mimic the dis-played emotions (e.g., facial expressions, movements,and posture) of those they interact with, leadingmimickers to experience perhaps similar emotions at-tributed to others. During each recruiter–applicanttransaction, it is likely that applicants intend to affiliatewith recruiters by imitating recruiters’ displayed positivemoods such as friendly eye contact and smiles. There-fore, those applicants who have expressed positivemoods may feel happier than they otherwise would ei-ther because those who have expressed positive moodswould experience an increase in exuberance-enhancingoxygen (Zajonc, 1985) or because those who have ex-pressed positive moods would infer that they are inhappy moods by perceiving their own positive mood ex-pressions (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999); both of these phe-nomena could create inner cues contributing toapplicants’ experienced positive moods similar to thepositive moods exhibited by recruiters. Past studies onemotional contagion has confirmed that an individual’sdisplay of emotions can induce a corresponding changein the observer’s emotions (e.g., McHugo, Lanzetta,Sullivan, Masters, & Englis, 1985; Pugh, 2001). Takingthese findings together, we propose the followinghypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Recruiters’ felt positive moods will bepositively related to the recruiters’ display of positivemoods, which, in turn, will be positively related toapplicants’ felt positive moods.

2.3. Applicant-perceived personableness andpositive moods as process variables

As mentioned above, recruiters with relatively high dis-plays of positive moods are more likely than the oneswith relatively less displays of positive moods to en-hance applicants’ perception of recruiter personablenessand make applicants experience highly positive moods.We proposed that applicants’ heightened perception ofpersonableness and positive moods will, in turn, pro-mote applicants’ favorable evaluation of the organizationin question (i.e., will strengthen organizational attrac-tion). A friendly recruiter may lead applicants to inferthe existence of such specific organizational character-istics as workplace friendliness, which, in turn, can culti-vate applicants’ attraction to the organization (Carless &Imber, 2007). Chapman et al.’s (2005) meta-analysisconfirmed that recruiter’s personableness correlatespositively with applicant organizational attraction (cor-rected r = .42, p < .05). In addition, applicants who havehighly positive moods are more likely than applicantswho have lowly positive moods to evaluate organiza-tions as attractive. A plausible reason behind this asser-tion is that applicants who are in good mood will moreeasily recall the positive memories of a target organiza-tion than will applicants who are in bad mood (i.e.,mood congruent memory effects; Bower, 1981) and willuse their positive mood as a context – or a framework– for judging the target organization (i.e., mood as in-formation effects; Schwarz & Clore, 1988). Happy indi-viduals tend to look at their surroundings throughrose-colored glasses and see the positive aspects ofthings (Gardner, 1985). Thus, happy applicants are morelikely than unhappy applicants to evaluate an organiza-tion favorably. Taking these findings together, we pro-pose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 5: Recruiters’ display of positive moods willbe positively related to applicants’ perception of recruit-ers’ personableness, which, in turn, will be positivelyrelated to applicants’ perception of organizations’attractiveness.

Hypothesis 6: Recruiters’ display of positive moods willbe positively related to applicants’ felt positive moods,which, in turn, will be positively related to applicants’perception of organizations’ attractiveness.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

We collected data from applicants and recruiters in areal-interview context to increase the generalizability ofthe study. Of the participants in this study, 161 were ap-plicants seeking non-managerial positions and 102 wererecruiters working for 1 of 55 Taiwan-based firms (23 in



manufacturing, 18 in the service industry, and 14 in mis-cellaneous industries). Of the 161 job applicants, 90(56%) were male, the mean age was 28.6 years, and themean duration of work experience was 4.5 years. Ofthe 102 recruiters, 63 (62%) were male, the mean agewas 37.9 years, and the mean duration of work experi-ence was 11.9 years.

3.2. Procedures

At each firm, we would first obtain permission frommanagement to solicit recruiters from the Human Re-source Department for participation in this study. Toprevent the effects of social desirability from surfacing inour study, we followed the suggestions of Arnold andFeldman (1981): we did not reveal the real objectives ofthe present study to the recruiters and applicants andsimply told them that the study concerned the employ-ment interview process. We also assured them that allresults were completely confidential. In this study, therewas only one recruiter and one applicant involved ineach interview. We collected data from multiplesources, applicants and recruiters, to lower the con-cerns associated with common method variance (CMV).Upon completion of the interview, 363 applicants wereapproached and 196 of them agreed to fill out a surveyconcerning their demographic information, their positivemoods for the period of the interview, their perceptionsof recruiters’ characteristics (i.e., informativeness, com-petence, personableness, and displayed positive moods)for the period of the interview, and their evaluation oforganizational attraction (response rate = 54%). As soonas each interview was completed, we asked recruitersto fill out a survey concerning their positive moods forthe period of the interview and their own demographicinformation. The third author coded the surveys bymatching the recruiter responses with the appropriateapplicant responses. After deleting unmatched pairs andquestionnaires with one or more missing responses, wehad a valid sample of 161 participants, which yielded avalid return rate of 44.35%.

3.3. Measures

Because the original survey instrument was developed inEnglish, the English scale was translated into Chineseand then back-translated into English so that the scale-item contents would have cross-linguistic comparability(Brislin, 1980).

3.3.1. Positive moods felt by recruiters and applicantsOur method (i.e., surveys of only 2–3 min in length)placed a constraint on the number of affect terms wecould use in attempting to cover the full range of posit-ive moods; thus, to measure this construct, we endedup using the scale developed by Bono, Foldes, Vinson,

and Muros (2007), which was a short version of thePositive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, &Tellegen, 1988), to measure the extent to which threenouns described participants’ feelings of positive moods(i.e., ‘happiness,’ ‘enthusiasm,’ and ‘optimism’) during theparticipants’ given interview (the extent of the descrip-tion was measured on a scale ranging from 1 = not at allto 4 = very much so). We chose to use the short versionbecause its affective terms could roughly cover the fullrange of work-relevant emotions (Bono et al., 2007),and because it could enhance the willingness of inter-viewers, perhaps growing frustrated with the length ofthe assessment, to respond deliberately to the items.The Cronbach’s αs of this measure were .91 for recruit-ers’ scores and .87 for applicants’ scores.

3.3.2. Positive moods displayed by recruitersWe used the same scale as the aforementioned measureof felt positive moods, developed by Bono et al. (2007).Applicants were asked to indicate the extent to whichthree nouns (i.e., ‘happiness,’ ‘enthusiasm,’ and ‘optim-ism’) described recruiters’ display of positive moodsduring the given interview (the extent of the descriptionwas measured on a scale ranging from 1 = not at all to4 = very much so). The Cronbach’s α of this measure was.92.

3.3.3. InformativenessWe used the 7-item scale from Harris and Fink (1987)to measure the informativeness construct on a 5-pointLikert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).Sample items included ‘The recruiter told me about ca-reers of others in his company’ and ‘The recruiter gaveme information about supervision.’ The Cronbach’s α ofthe measure was .81.

3.3.4. CompetenceWe used the 6-item scale from Goldberg (2003) tomeasure the competence construct on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).Sample items included ‘The interviewer was competent’and ‘The interviewer demonstrated expertise.’ TheCronbach’s α of the measure was .92.

3.3.5. PersonablenessWe used the 7-item scale from Goldberg (2003) tomeasure the personableness construct on a 5-pointLikert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).Sample items included ‘The interviewer seemed to be awarm person’ and ‘The interviewer was personable.’The Cronbach’s α of the measure was .91.

3.3.6. Organizational attractionWe used the 9-item scale from Highhouse, Lievens, andSinar (2003) to measure the organizational-attractionconstruct on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly dis-




agree; 5 = strongly agree). Sample items included ‘I wouldactively pursue obtaining a position with this company’and ‘I would accept a job offer from the company, if itwere offered.’ The Cronbach’s α of the measure was.85.

3.4. Analyses

We tested our hypotheses with structural equationmodeling by using LISREL 8.72 (Jöreskog & Sörbom,1993) with maximum-likelihood estimation. We fol-lowed the two-step procedure suggested by Andersonand Gerbing (1988) to test the hypothesized relation-ships. First, we analyzed the factor structure of all thevariables in the study, seeking a basis for the structuralrelationships among the variables. After confirming thefactor structures, we conducted a structural model totest the hypothesized relationships.

4. Results

4.1. Analysis of validity

Table 1 presents the results of the confirmatory factoranalysis. Chi-square difference tests indicate that thehypothesized seven-factor model (i.e., recruiters’ feltpositive moods, recruiters’ displayed positive moods,applicants’ positive moods, informativeness, compet-ence, personableness, and organizational attraction)provided a better fit for the data than did (1) the one-factor model in which all seven factors were combined(Δχ2 = 1,914.88, df = 21, p < .01); (2) the four-factormodel in which the four process variables of applicantperception (i.e., informativeness, competence, per-sonableness, and applicants’ positive moods) werecombined (Δχ2 = 663.47, df = 15, p < .01); and (3) thesix-factor model in which the recruiters’ felt positivemoods and recruiters’ displayed positive moods werecombined (Δχ2 = 457.58, df = 6, p < .01). These resultssuggest that the present study’s constructs weredistinct.

We used three tests to assess discriminant validity.First, we constrained interconstruct correlations tounity one at a time and measured the difference in thechi-square statistics (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The

results show that the chi-square changes were allsignificant at the .01 level (Δχ2 ranged from 102.90 to574.14); second, we compared a one-factor model (i.e.,only one construct) with a two-factor model (i.e., theaforementioned construct’s factor with another con-struct’s factor) one at a time and measured the differ-ence in the chi-square statistics. The results show thatthe two-factor model provided a better fit for the datathan did the one-factor model (Δχ2 ranged from 176.95to 638.43); third, we compared a six-factor model inwhich the six constructs rated by applicants wereincluded with the one-factor model in which all sixconstructs were combined. The results show that thesix-factor model provided a better fit for the datathan did the one-factor model (Δχ2 = 1,593.29, df = 5,p < .01). Hence, discriminant validity was achieved.Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, andintercorrelations of all variables included in this study.

4.2. Model evaluation and hypothesis testing

Because we made no prediction as to whether the rela-tionships in the model involved partial or full mediation,we tested two competing models: the fully mediatedmodel (shown in Figure 1) and a partially mediatedmodel. The partially mediated model differed from thefully mediated model in a direct path that led from re-cruiters’ felt positive moods to organizational attraction.As shown in Table 3, the fit of the partially mediatedmodel was not significantly better than that in the fullymediated model (Δχ2 [1] = .26, p > .05). Moreover, eachof the direct links leading from recruiters’ felt positivemoods to organizational attraction was not statisticallysignificant (γ = .01, p > .05). Therefore, we retained themore parsimonious model (the fully mediated model)as the final model and used it to examine our hypoth-eses. The fully mediated model fits the data well(χ2 [518] = 1,395.79; comparative fit index (CFI) = .93;normed fit index (NFI) = .90; incremental fit index(IFI) = .93; relative fit index (RFI) = .89). Figure 1 showsall standardized path coefficients. All standardized pathcoefficients, except that of the link between perceivedpersonableness and organizational attraction (β = −.13,p > .10), were statistically significant and in the predicteddirections, thereby disconfirming Hypothesis 5.

Table 1. Results of confirmatory factor analysis of study variables

Model χ2 df △χ2 CFI NFI IFI RFI

One-factor modela 3087.10 527 1914.88 .85 .82 .85 .81Four-factor modelb 1835.69 521 663.47 .91 .88 .91 .87Six-factor modelc 1629.80 512 457.58 .91 .88 .91 .87Hypothesized seven-factor model 1172.22 506 – .95 .92 .95 .91aAll seven factors are combined into one factor.bInformativeness, competence, personableness, and applicants’ positive moods are combined into one factor.cRecruiters’ felt positive moods and recruiters’ displayed positive moods are combined into one factor.



Furthermore, we examined the significance of eachhypothesized indirect relationship with the z-primemethod, as recommended by MacKinnon, Lockwood,Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002). Results show thatrecruiters’ felt positive moods had a marginally signifi-cant indirect association via applicant-perceived informa-tiveness with organizational attraction (z' = 1.44, p < .10)and had a significant indirect association via applicant-perceived competence with organizational attraction(z' = 1.66, p < .05), offering support for both Hypotheses1 and 2. In addition, recruiters’ positive moods had sig-nificant indirect association via their display of positivemoods with both applicants’ perceived personableness(z' = 3.37, p < .01) and applicants’ felt positive moods(z’ = 3.38, p < .01), offering support for both Hypotheses3 and 4. Recruiters’ display of positive moods had a sig-nificant indirect association via applicants’ felt positivemoods with organizational attraction (z' = 3.03, p < .01),offering support for Hypothesis 6.

5. Discussion

The present research extends previous studies by em-pirically examining the process mechanisms throughwhich recruiter’s positive moods can predict organiza-tional attraction. Although past research has indicatedthat applicants are positively influenced by recruitercharacteristics such as being informative, competent,and personable (Chapman et al., 2005), the recruitmentliterature has lacked substantive research on guidelinesgoverning how organizations should identify and selectindividuals well suited for the role of recruiter (Lievens& Chapman, 2010). Breaugh (2008) suggested that ‘fu-ture research on recruiters needs to be more fine-

grained (e.g., not just dichotomizing recruiters as beingline or staff) than past research has been’ (p. 111).Other scholars have called for more research examiningrecruiters’ non-demographic individual differences thatmay be associated with recruiting success (Chapmanet al., 2005; Lievens & Chapman, 2010). Our currentstudy answers the aforementioned research calls andhas found that recruiters’ positive moods influence ap-plicants’ attraction to the recruiters’ respective organi-zation indirectly through several processes. To ourknowledge, our work is one of the first attempts to in-corporate recruiters’ positive mood as a predictor ofapplicant attraction. The findings also contribute to therecruitment research by clarifying how organizations cantake steps first to impress applicants and then to attractthe best applicants (Connerley & Rynes, 1997).

According to some research, ‘[M]any promising the-oretical models exist that should be explored for theirapplicability to the employment interview’ (Posthuma,Morgeson, & Campion, 2002, p. 49). Breaugh and Starke(2000) argued that although past studies have offeredseveral explanations of why recruiters may influence jobcandidates’ job choice, ‘researchers have not focusedheavily on the underlying reasons why different types ofrecruiters may influence the attention potential applic-ants give to a job opening or the interest applicantshave in a position’ (p. 414), and ‘more theory develop-ment needs to take place’ (p. 415). Rynes and Cable(2003) have also noted that frequently mediating vari-ables in the recruitment literature have always beenassumed rather than tested. To answer the aforemen-tioned research calls, the present study has contributedto the literature on organizational attraction ante-cedents by applying the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986),critical contact theory (Behling et al., 1968), signaling

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Recruiters’ felt positive moods 2.39 .77 (.91)2. Informativeness 3.69 .54 .12 (.81)3. Competence 4.02 .55 .09 .61** (.92)4. Recruiters’ displayed positive moods 2.55 .75 .26** .51** .48** (.92)5. Personableness 3.96 .55 .19* .61** .79** .65** (.91)6. Applicant positive moods 2.52 .70 .17* .44** .37** .61** .47** (.87)7. Organizational attraction 3.81 .59 .07 .34** .48** .27** .40** .41** (.85)

*p < .05, **p < .01.Note: Cronbach’s αs appear on the diagonal.

Table 3. Fit indices for hypothesized and the alternative model

Model χ2 df CFI NFI IFI RFI

Model 1 (fully mediated model) 1,395.79 518 .93 .90 .93 .89Model 2 (partialy mediated model)a 1,395.53 517 .93 .90 .93 .89aIn comparison to Model 1, Model 2 adds a path from recruiters’ felt positive moods to organization attraction.




theory (Rynes et al., 1991), and social influence theory(Ferris et al., 2002) to explain how and why recruiters’positive mood states predict applicant-felt organizationalattraction. This present study goes a step further indeepening the field’s understanding of the processes bywhich happy recruiters may enhance job seekers’ attrac-tion to the organization.

Another theoretical contribution of this study con-cerns the sample and the context in the data collectionprocess. As past research on recruiter effects tookplace predominantly in laboratory settings or involvedcollege students searching for jobs through their col-lege placement offices, it is unclear to what extent onecould generalize the findings of this past researchto field settings (Breaugh, 2008). Our study collecteddata in a real field setting with real recruiters andreal applicants, and thus constitutes a response toPosthuma et al.’s (2002) call to collect data in a real in-terview setting, which has the advantage of reflecting‘the physical, emotional, and cognitive fidelity of inter-views where there are real outcomes for both inter-viewer and applicant’ (p. 41). The real sample and fieldcontext is particularly important because ‘applicantsmay discount interviewer behavior in favor of informa-tion about objective characteristics of real jobs (e.g.,pay level), especially as an actual job choice decisionapproaches’ (Posthuma et al., 2002, p. 34). Our studyalso answers scholars’ call for research that addressesthe social and relational context of emotion by exam-ining how the employment interview is a context ofemotional influence that needs unique theoretical at-tention (Fineman, 2000; Grandey, 2008).

This research, to a certain extent, clarifies an import-ant thesis in the field of work affect: ‘happy worker–productive worker’ (Staw, 1986). In a review paperfocused on workplace emotion, Elfenbein (2007) arguedthat ‘the influence of affect on performance is contextdependent, based on whether there is a match versusmismatch between the response tendencies of the affectand the demands of the task at hand . . . The demands ofthe task include not only productivity, but also otherpotentially valuable workplace outcomes’ (p. 355). Itwould thus appear to be important for researchers toexamine the effects of positive affect on various meas-ures of outcome variables that may be considered typesof performance, depending on the task context (Barsade& Gibson, 2007; Kaplan, Bradley, Luchman, & Haynes,2009). Also important is the relationship between posi-tive affect and performance in nontraditional work set-tings (Côté, 1999), such as the employment interviewsin the current study. The present results contribute tothe field by providing evidence that, at least in the con-text of employment interviews, recruiters’ happy moodscan help them enhance applicants’ perceptions of re-cruiters’ informativeness, competence, and personable-ness while also helping recruiters make applicants feel

happy – an outcome that, in turn, increases the likeli-hood that applicants will find the given organizationattractive.

Although the present study has provided evidencethat recruiters’ positive moods can positively affect re-cruiting outcomes, past research has shown that recruit-ers’ affective moods during interviews can bias therecruiters’ interview judgment (e.g., Baron, 1987, 1993).This finding means that positive mood, as far as recruit-ers are concerned, is like a double-edged sword becauseit not only helps recruiters attract the best candidatesbut also may backfire by essentially corrupting their de-cision making. Our findings also contribute to the litera-ture by providing evidence regarding the boundaryconditions related to job requirements and demands,where positive moods can be helpful in recruitment andharmful in selection (Elfenbein, 2007). We believe thatfuture research should further examine whether posit-ive moods can be beneficial to functions other thanhuman resource management (e.g., training andperformance appraisal).

The present study also provides evidence forcross-cultural generalization of the recruiter effects onrecruitment effectiveness. Reviewing past recruiter be-havior literature, we found that it is based predom-inantly on data from Western cultures, and it may bepremature to assume that findings on the effects of re-cruiter behavior in the West can apply wholly andcleanly to other cultural settings (Adler, 1983). Thepresent study may contribute to the employment inter-view research field by examining the applicability ofWestern recruitment theories and practices to Easterncontexts (e.g., Taiwan). The consistency between ourfindings and West-based findings may help form thebasis for a common framework within which multina-tional corporations can help recruiters with diverse cul-tural backgrounds make their organizations moreattractive to candidates by means of their own positivemoods.

An unexpected finding in this study was that per-ceived personableness was not related to organizationalattraction (β = −.13, p > .10), a result that was inconsist-ent with past research findings (e.g., Chapman et al.,2005). However, as Table 2 shows, we found that thebivariate correlation between perceived personablenessand organizational attraction was positive and statist-ically significant (r = .40, p < .01). One possible explana-tion for the contradiction is that the high correlationsbetween perceived personableness and the other threetypes of applicant perceptions (i.e., informativeness,competence, and applicant positive moods) (r = .61–.79,all ps < .01) may have resulted in the condition of multi-collinearity, which would have caused the relationshipbetween perceived personableness and organizationalattraction to stem from the other three applicant per-ceptions, resulting in a spurious path coefficient (Cohen,



Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996). In addition, the magnitudeof the variation of perceived personableness (SD = .51)was smaller than that of past studies (e.g., Goldberg,2003: SD = .71; Turban et al., 1998: SD = .64), implyingthat applicants in this study consistently perceived arelatively limited range of recruiter personableness.Thus, the restriction of range relative to perceptions ofpersonableness may have reduced the statistical powerneeded for testing the hypotheses (Schmidt, Hunter, &Urry, 1976). The third plausible explanation for this un-expected finding may lie in the labor market conditionsthat prevailed during the data collection. Data for thisstudy were collected in the spring of 2011, a time whenthe unemployment rate in Taiwan was at relativelyhigh level. During times of job scarcity, applicants maybe more concerned with whether they can receive ajob offer, thus leading them to neglect whether therecruiter is personable or not when forming theirorganizational attraction perceptions. Another plausiblereason for the non-significant finding concerns thesample attributes. In contrast to previous studies (e.g.,Goldberg, 2003; Turban et al., 1998), which generallyused samples consisting of college students, our studycollected data from a sample of experienced job seekers(mean job tenure = 4.5 years). According to Goltz andGiannantonio (1995), these experienced applicants may‘discount recruiter friendliness as simply being a roleplayed by all recruiters for all applicants,’ thus lesseningthe effects of recruiter personableness on applicants’ at-traction to the organization.

5.1. Practical implications

Drawing on the results of the present study, we identi-fied and discussed the possible effects of recruiters’positive moods on applicants’ own moods and percep-tions. Past scholars (e.g., Grandey, 2000, 2003;Hochschild, 1983) have divided emotional displays intotwo forms: ‘surface acting,’ which involves deliberateemotional displays that, although appropriate for thesituation, are not actually felt, and ‘deep acting,’ whichinvolves attempts to actually experience the emotionsso that authentic displays of the emotions may result.The literature on emotional labor suggests the import-ance of genuine emotional displays in service work (e.g.,Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993) and in leadership (e.g.,Gardner, Fischer, & Hunt, 2009). Research has consis-tently confirmed that individuals who engage in deepacting are more likely to garner favorable impressionsregarding sincerity and friendliness than are individualswho engage in surface acting (e.g., Grandey, 2003;Grandey, Fisk, Mattila, Jansen, & Sideman, 2005). From apractical standpoint, we suggest that management,rather than put the obligation on the recruiter to createan authentic display of positive moods, could benefitfrom inspiring authentic positive moods in recruiters

(i.e., deep acting). Managers could take actions that in-clude selecting recruiters with highly positive affectivetraits (George, 1991), providing recruiters with mon-etary rewards (Clark & Watson, 1988), and promotingrecruiters’ sense that they are engaged in meaningful ac-tivities (George & Brief, 1992; Saavedra & Kwun, 2000).These could subsequently improve the authenti-city of recruiters’ positive moods.

5.2. Limitations and directions for future research

Given the above-mentioned theoretical and practical im-plications, this study is not without its limitations. First,in order to avoid the potential problem raised by CMV(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), we fol-lowed Posthuma et al.’s (2002) suggestion that research-ers collect data from both applicants and recruiters. Forexample, we asked recruiters to rate their positivemoods, and asked applicants to evaluate their assess-ment of the recruiters (i.e., recruiters’ displays ofpositive moods, informativeness, competence, andpersonableness), their own positive moods, and organ-izational attraction. Despite this effort to vary sources,we did not measure all the process variables in ourtheoretical model in reference to sources other thanthe applicants, indicating that the complex processembedded in our model may suffer from CMV-basedinflation of the observed effects among variables.Nevertheless, given the CFA and discriminant validityanalysis as seen in the Results section, it seems reason-able to conclude that our measures of all variables aredistinct and distinguishable (Podsakoff et al., 2003),indicating that the problem of CMV may not be a seri-ous threat to the validity of the findings reported in thisstudy.

Second, as this study relied on cross-sectional data,the direction of causality cannot be unambiguously de-termined. Nevertheless, this concern might be mitigatedinasmuch as our findings rest on deductions from well-developed theories and are consistent with the resultsof previous experimental studies (e.g., Goltz &Giannantonio, 1995; Rynes & Miller, 1983) and meta-analyses (e.g. Chapman et al., 2005). Moreover, it maynot be reasonable to argue that applicants’ organiza-tional attraction can significantly affect positive moodsfelt by recruiters. Future studies perhaps should use anexperimental research design to make causal inferencesabout the studied relationships in this research.

Third, in our study, we did not measure actual jobchoice decisions of applicants. It has been argued thatwhen job and organization characteristics are taken intoaccount, recruiters have little effect on job choices (e.g.,Rynes et al., 1991). However, Chapman et al.’s (2005)meta-analysis found that recruiter characteristics willfirst influence applicants’ attraction to an organization,and next influence applicants’ acceptance intentions, and




finally influence decisions concerning actual job choices.We encourage future research to extend our findingsby tracking applicants through the recruitment processto determine whether the recruiters’ positive moods dohave an effect on applicants’ final job choices.

Another limitation in our study is that we neitherconsidered nor controlled for firm-specific character-istics (e.g., firm reputation) or job-specific characteris-tics (e.g., salary) in the present study. This means thatour theoretical formulation of the process by whichrecruiters’ positive affect influences organizational at-traction is far from being exhaustive. However, paststudies (e.g., Powell, 1991; Rynes & Miller, 1983) haveindicated that after controlling for job and organiza-tional characteristics, interviewers’ positive affect ex-plained unique variance in job acceptance intentions.To highlight the important role of recruiter affect, fu-ture research should investigate the unique importanceof recruiter moods by including as covariates othercharacteristics (e.g., firm-specific characteristics andjob-specific characteristics) that determine organiza-tional attraction.

To expand the current findings, future research mayexplore other possible mechanisms that mediate therelationship between recruiter positive moods andorganizational attraction. For example, past researchhas indicated that people with higher positive moodshave higher creativity performance (Amabile, Barsade,Mueller, & Staw, 2005) and stronger work motivation(Seo, Feldman Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004). Thus, we ex-pect that the more positive a recruiter’s mood is, themore effort the recruiter will display and the more cre-ative the recruiter will be in promoting organizationalgoals and in persuading desirable applicants to acceptthe recruiter’s job offers.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, the present study contributes to ourknowledge of the field of selection interview and workaffect by using multiple sources of measurement and bycollecting data in the field settings of real employmentinterviews for real job openings, which is particularlyimportant for social factors (e.g., recruiters’ emotionalinfluence) because of the ‘rich social context thatsurrounds actual employment interviews’ (Posthumaet al., 2002, p. 14). Our results support previous re-search by demonstrating the importance of recruiters’positive moods on organizational attraction (specifically,on the attractiveness of recruiters’ organizations to jobapplicants). Building on these findings, future researchshould strive to clarify not only the relationship be-tween recruiters’ positive moods and organizationalattraction but also the moods’ effects on recruitingprocesses.

Note

1. Scholars have argued that positive affect is associatedmore strongly than negative affect with socially relatedprocesses, while negative affect is more strongly related tonon-social intrapsychic outcomes (e.g., stress) (Barsade &Gibson, 2007). Given the social nature of the employmentinterview examined in the present study, positive moodsmay be particularly relevant for recruiters’ performance.Thus, the present study focuses on positive moods, andnot negative moods.

References

Adler, N. J. (1983). Cross-cultural management research: theostrich and the trend. Academic of Management Review, 8,226–232.

Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M.(2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 50, 367–403.

Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressivebehavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: ameta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equationmodeling in practice: a review and recommended two stepapproach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1981). Social desirability re-sponse bias in self-report choice situations. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 24, 377–385.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor inservice roles: the influence of identity. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 18, 88–115.

Barger, P., & Grandey, A. (2006). ‘Service with a smile’ and en-counter satisfaction: emotional contagion and appraisalmechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1229–1238.

Baron, R. A. (1987). Interviews’ moods and reactions to jobapplicants: the influence of affective states on applied socialjudgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 911–926.

Baron, R. A. (1993). Interviews’ moods and evaluations of jobapplicants: the role of applicant qualifications. Journal of Ap-plied Social Psychology, 23, 253–271.

Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matterin organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21,36–59.

Behling, O., Labovitz, G., & Geiner, M. (1968). College recruit-ing: a theoretical base. Personnel Journal, 47, 13–19.

Bono, J. E., Foldes, J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Work-place emotions: the role of supervision and leadership. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1357–1367.

Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist,36, 129–148.

Breaugh, J. A. (2008). Employee recruitment: current know-ledge and important areas for future research. Human Re-source Management Review, 18, 103–118.

Breaugh, J. A., & Starke, M. (2000). Research on employee re-cruitment: so many studies, so many remaining questions.Journal of Management, 26, 405–434.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oraland written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.),



Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389–444).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Carless, S. A., & Imber, A. (2007). The influence of perceivedinterviewer and job and organizational characteristics onapplicant attraction and job choice intentions: the role ofapplicant anxiety. International Journal of Selection and Assess-ment, 15, 359–371.

Carless, S. A., & Wintle, J. (2007). Applicant attraction: therole of recruiter function, work-life balance policies and ca-reer salience. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,15, 394–404.

Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin,K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organ-izations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the corre-lates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,928–944.

Chartrand, J. M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect:the perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1988). Mood and the mundane: re-lations between daily life events and self-reported mood.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 296–308.

Clark, M. S., & Taraban, C. B. (1991). Reactions to and willing-ness to express emotion in two types of relationships. Jour-nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 324–336.

Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A pre-dictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness.Human Relations, 49, 643–676.

Connerley, M. L., & Rynes, S. L. (1997). The influence of re-cruiter characteristics and organizational recruitment sup-port on perceived recruiter effectiveness: views fromapplicants and recruiters. Human Relations, 50, 1563–1586.

Côté, S. (1999). Affect and performance in organizational set-tings. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 65–68.

Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1995). Resources, personal strivings,and subjective well-being: a nomothetic and idiographic ap-proach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 926–935.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., &Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organiza-tional support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51.

Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies. New York: Norton.Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ancoli, S. (1980). Facial signs of

emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho-logy, 39, 1125–1134.

Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotion in organizations: a review andtheoretical integration. Academy of Management Annals, 1,315–386.

Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blass, F. R.,Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2002). Social influ-ence processes in organizations and human resource sys-tems. Research in Personnel and Human ResourceManagement, 21, 65–127.

Fineman, S. (2000). Emotional arenas revisited. In S. Fineman(Ed.), Emotion in organizations (2nd ed., pp. 1–24). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Gardner, M. P. (1985). Mood states and consumer behavior:a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 281–300.

Gardner, W. L., Fischer, D., & Hunt, J. G. (2009). Emotionallabor and leadership: a threat to authenticity? The LeadershipQuarterly, 20, 466–482.

George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: effects of positive moodon prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,76, 299–307.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: aconceptual analysis of the mood at work-organization spon-taneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–329.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: a theoreticalanalysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Man-agement Review, 17, 183–211.

Goldberg, C. B. (2003). Who responds to surveys? Assessingthe effects of nonresponse in cross-sectional dyadic re-search. Assessment, 10, 41–48.

Goltz, S. M., & Giannantonio, C. M. (1995). Recruiter friendli-ness and attraction to the job: the mediating role of infer-ences about the organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior,46, 109–118.

Grandey, A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: anew way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occu-pational Health Psychology, 5, 95–110.

Grandey, A. (2003). When the show must go on: surface anddeep acting as predictors of emotional exhaustion and ser-vice delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 86–96.

Grandey, A. (2008). Emotions at work: A review and researchagenda. In C. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), The SAGE handbookof organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 234–261). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., &Sideman, L. A. (2005). Is ‘service with a smile’ enough?Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96,38–55.

Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emo-tions in women’s college yearbook pictures and their rela-tionship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 112–124.

Harris, M. M., & Fink, L. S. (1987). A field study of applicant re-actions to employment opportunities: does the recruitermake a difference? Personnel Psychology, 40, 765–784.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional con-tagion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hess, U., Philippot, P., & Blairy, S. (1998). Facial reactions toemotional facial expressions: affect or cognition? Cognition &Emotion, 12, 509–531.

Higgins, C. A., & Judge, T. A. (2004). The effect of applicant in-fluence tactics on recruiter perceptions of fit and hiring rec-ommendations: a field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,622–632.

Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring at-traction to organizations. Educational and Psychological Mea-surement, 63, 986–1101.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: The commercial-ization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s refer-ence guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Kaplan, S., Bradley, J. C., Luchman, J. N., & Haynes, D. (2009).On the role of positive and negative affectivity in jobperformance: a meta-analytic investigation. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 94, 162–176.

Larsen, D. A., & Phillips, J. I. (2002). Effect of recruiter on at-traction to the firm: implications of the elaboration likeli-




hood model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 347–364.

Lievens, F., & Chapman, D. S. (2010). Recruitment and selec-tion. In A. Wilkinson, T. Redman, S. Snell, & N. Bacon (Eds.),Handbook of human resource management (pp. 135–154).Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits offrequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psy-chological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S.G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to testmediation and other intervening variable effects. Psycholo-gical Methods, 7, 83–104.

Matsumoto, D. (1987). The role of facial response in the ex-perience of emotion: more methodological problems and ameta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,769–774.

McHugo, G. J., Lanzetta, J. T., Sullivan, D. G., Masters, R. D., &Englis, B. G. (1985). Emotional reactions to a political lead-er’s expressive display. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 49, 1513–1529.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and per-suasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: acritical review of the literature and recommended remedies.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Posthuma, R. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2002).Beyond employment interview validity: a comprehensivenarrative review of recent research and trends overtime.Personnel Psychology, 55, 1–81.

Powell, G. N. (1991). Applicant reactions to the initial employ-ment interview: exploring theoretical and methodological is-sues. Personnel Psychology, 44, 67–83.

Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: emotional contagionin the service encounter. Academy of Management Journal,44, 1018–1027.

Rosenberg, E. L., & Ekman, P. (1994). Coherence between ex-pressive and experiential systems in emotion. Cognition andEmotion, 8, 201–229.

Ruch, W. (1987). Personality aspects in the psychobiology ofhumor laughter. Paper presented at the Third Meeting of theInternational Society for the Study of Individual Differences,Toronto.

Rynes, S. L. (1989). The employment interview as a recruit-ment device. In R. W. Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employ-ment interview: Theory, research and practice (pp. 127–141).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hireconsequences: A call for new research directions. In M. D.Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial andorganizational psychology (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 399–444). PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The import-ance of recruitment in job choice: a different way of look.Personnel Psychology, 44, 487–521.

Rynes, S. L., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Recruitment research inthe twenty-first century. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen &R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and or-ganizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 55–76). Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons.

Rynes, S. L., & Miller, H. E. (1983). Recruiter and job influenceson candidates for employment. Journal of Applied Psychology,68, 147–154.

Saavedra, R., & Kwun, S. K. (2000). Affective states in job char-acteristics theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 131–146.

Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Urry, V. W. (1976). Statisticalpower in criterion-related validation studies. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 61, 473–485.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1988). How do I feel about it?The informative function of affective states. In K. Fiedler & J.Forgas (Eds.), Affect, cognition and social behavior (pp. 44–62).Toronto: Hogrefe International.

Seo, M. G., Feldman Barrett, L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). Therole of affective experience in work motivation. Academy ofManagement Review, 29, 423–439.

Staw, B. M. (1986). Organizational psychology and the pursuitof the happy/productive worker. California Management Re-view, 28, 40–53.

Tsai, W. C. (2001). Determinants and consequences of em-ployee displayed positive emotions. Journal of Management,27, 497–512.

Tsai, W. C., Chen, C. C., & Liu, H. L. (2007). Test of a modellinking employee positive moods and task performance. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1570–1583.

Tsai, W. C., & Huang, Y. M. (2002). Mechanisms linking em-ployee affective delivery and customer behavioral intentions.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1001–1008.

Turban, D. B., Forret, M. L., & Hendrickson, C. L. (1998). Ap-plicant attraction to firms: influences of organization reputa-tion, job and organizational attributes, and recruiterbehaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 24–44.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Developmentand validation of brief measures of positive and negative af-fect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 54, 1063–1070.

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contri-bution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 516–531.

Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts asmile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that pro-cessing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 81, 989–1000.

Zajonc, R. B. (1985). Emotion and facial efference: a theory re-claimed. Science, 5, 15–21.



The Process Mechanisms Linking Recruiter Positive Moods and Organizational Attraction

Documents

Transcript of The Process Mechanisms Linking Recruiter Positive Moods and Organizational Attraction