MECHANISMS LINKING REALISTIC JOB PREVIEWS WITH … · 866 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY andresearchtendstofocusonattractingasufﬁcientquantityandqualityof applicants to the organization and

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY2011, 64, 865–897

MECHANISMS LINKING REALISTIC JOB PREVIEWSWITH TURNOVER: A META-ANALYTIC PATHANALYSIS

DAVID R. EARNESTTowson University

DAVID G. ALLENThe University of Memphis

RONALD S. LANDISThe University of Memphis

A meta-analytic path analysis with k = 52 studies and sample size ofroughly 17,000 showed that enhanced perceptions of organizational hon-esty is the primary mechanism by which realistic job previews (RJPs)influence voluntary turnover. This suggests revisions to RJP theory toincorporate social exchange and the way RJPs lead individuals to feelabout the organization. Results assessing several new potential moder-ators of relationships between RJPs and turnover found that the mosteffective RJP design may be an oral or written RJP delivered posthireand designed to signal organizational honesty. We discuss several keytheoretical and practical implications of the results based on a novelsignaling theory perspective on RJPs.

Organizations strive to attract, recruit, and retain qualified and produc-tive employees, as human capital is essential for organizational effective-ness. Successfully accomplishing these goals, however, can be challeng-ing. The recruitment and retention of key employees remain critical issuesfor organizations (Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010). Even when volun-tary turnover rates drop because of unfavorable labor markets, there isevidence that high unemployment rates have little impact on the turnoverof high-performing employees or those with in-demand skill sets (Trevor,2001). Thus, organizations must take steps to ensure their productive em-ployees remain on the job or risk potentially exorbitant financial costs(Ployhart, Schneider, & Schmitt, 2006).

Although often treated separately in practice and research, recruitmentand turnover are to some extent inextricably linked. Recruitment practice

The authors thank Jean Phillips, Charles Pierce, and the two anonymous reviewers fortheir helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to David Earnest, De-partment of Psychology, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252;[email protected]© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

865

866 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

and research tends to focus on attracting a sufficient quantity and quality ofapplicants to the organization and is largely grounded in signaling theory.Signaling theory is based on the idea that job seekers faced with incompleteinformation use whatever information is available as signals about job andorganizational attributes (Rynes, 1991; Spence, 1973). This signaling oc-curs as organizations attempt to persuasively communicate informationacross three stages of the recruitment process: attracting applicants, main-taining applicants, and influencing job choice (Allen, Mahto, & Otondo,2007; Barber, 1998). Turnover practice and research tends to focus on howjob, organization, and environmental factors shape quit decisions and islargely grounded in the theory of organizational equilibrium: Individualsare motivated to continue participating as long as the inducements for par-ticipation outweigh the expected contributions (March & Simon, 1958).These two processes are linked to the extent that information, signals, andexperiences during recruitment influence subsequent evaluations of jobsand organizations, desire to quit, and turnover decisions.

One primary linking mechanism between recruitment and turnover isthe realistic job preview (RJP). RJPs are defined as programs, materials,and/or presentations that provide applicants with realistic and balanced(positive and negative) information about a job (Barber, 1998; Breaugh& Starke, 2000; Phillips, 1998). More than 20 years ago, two quantitativereviews reported similar results regarding the relationship between RJPsand turnover. McEvoy and Cascio (1985) reported a corrected correlationbetween RJPs and turnover of r = −.09 and concluded that given thisrelatively modest effect, turnover reduction efforts might be better tar-geted elsewhere. Alternatively, Premack and Wanous (1985) reported acorrected correlation of r = −.06 but concluded that given the relativelymodest investment required to implement an RJP, providing RJPs is auseful turnover management strategy. Phillips (1998) updated these priormeta-analytic results and reported corrected correlations of r = −.06 withvoluntary turnover and r = −.05 with aggregate turnover (i.e., volun-tary, involuntary, and not specified). Thus, RJPs have been consistentlyassociated with reduced turnover, albeit with modest effect sizes.

These prior reviews also presented mixed evidence regarding the pres-ence and importance of potential moderators of the RJP-turnover rela-tionship. McEvoy and Cascio (1985) concluded there was little evidenceof significant unexplained variance to warrant a search for moderators.Premack and Wanous (1985), on the other hand, noted that job complex-ity might moderate the relationship such that the effect is stronger formore complex jobs (r = −.12) than for less complex jobs (r = −.02).Providing yet another perspective related to moderators, Phillips (1998)reported evidence that research setting, RJP timing, and RJP mediummoderate the relationship such that the effect is stronger for field rather

DAVID R. EARNEST ET AL. 867

than lab studies, RJPs given right before hiring rather than very early inrecruitment or after hiring, and verbal and written rather than videotapedRJPs. Phillips (1998) concluded that future research in the area shouldfocus on the conditions under which RJPs are likely to be most effective.

In addition to identifying potential moderators, five primary mediat-ing mechanisms (met expectations, role clarity, perceptions of honesty,self-selection, and perceptions of fit that influence attraction to the or-ganization) have been proposed to explain how and why RJPs influenceturnover (Breaugh and Starke, 2000). Despite scattered empirical supportfor each of these mechanisms, research to date has not assessed eachmechanism in a single study, thus providing limited evidence concerningthe relative importance of each. Learning more about the role of eachmechanism has important conceptual implications for understanding howRJPs work and important practical implications for organizations desiringto implement an RJP.

We intend to make several important contributions to the literature.First, although previous research has shown a relationship between RJPsand turnover, there is no consensus on the mechanisms by which this oc-curs. In this study, meta-analytic path analysis was used to directly test theroles of several proposed mediating mechanisms. To our knowledge, this isthe first test of this kind in the area and may provide new insights into howand why RJPs work. Second, although there has been some considerationof the boundary conditions related to the RJP–turnover relationship, therehave been repeated calls for more attention to explaining the conditionsunder which RJPs are more or less likely to influence voluntary turnover.We assessed a variety of moderators including several that have not beenincluded in previous meta-analytic reviews, providing new insights intowhen and under what conditions RJPs are likely to be most effective. Inaddition, we updated the most recent RJP meta-analysis (Phillips, 1998)with more than a decade of subsequent research incorporating an addi-tional 30% effect sizes. This update is particularly important because therapid increase in the availability of job and organization information dueto the Internet could make the information signaling function of RJPs lessimportant, yet no research has examined this possibility.

Realistic Job Previews and Turnover: Possible Mediators

The goal of an RJP is to present applicants with a balanced and accurateview of a particular job within an organization. As previously mentioned,evidence suggests that RJPs reduce subsequent turnover (both voluntaryand aggregate). Thus, we expect to find the use of RJPs to be negativelyassociated with turnover. In addition to examining this simple relation-ship, we assess five mediating mechanisms identified from the literature


including met expectations, role clarity, perceptions of honesty, self-selection (acceptance), and attraction to the organization. Because self-selection has been most often studied as group-level acceptance rates, andbecause individuals who self-select out of the process (and thus are nothired) cannot provide data related to subsequent turnover, this mechanismwas included in the meta-analytic review but not the mediator analy-ses. Therefore, we developed hypotheses related to the extent to whichfour potential mechanisms partially mediate the RJP–voluntary turnoverrelationship. We propose partial mediation because there are multiplemechanisms and because other mechanisms yet to be identified may alsoplay a role.

Job Acceptance

One of the primary roles of an RJP is to provide applicants with re-alistic information about the positive and negative aspects of a job andworking environment. The realistic information allows applicants to makean informed decision about whether they should continue with the selec-tion process (Bretz & Judge, 1998). This self-selection function influencesvoluntary turnover because applicants who perceive that they would havedifficulty adjusting to the work environment may be more likely to opt outof the process. Realistic information provides applicants with the abilityto compare job alternatives, which in theory should allow them to makemore informed job acceptance decisions (Breaugh & Starke, 2000). In theabsence of an RJP, these same applicants may find themselves hired into aninhospitable or incompatible job or work environment resulting in theirdesire to leave. Meta-analytic reviews report that RJPs have a negativerelationship with acceptance (Phillips, 1998; Premack & Wanous, 1985).Thus, we expected the use of RJPs to be associated with lower acceptance.Job acceptance is typically measured and reported as a group-level indexof the percentage or rate at which applicants accept offers of employment.Unfortunately, because only individuals who accept an employment offercan turnover, acceptance rates cannot be used to empirically evaluate therole of acceptance as a mediator of the RJP–turnover relationship.

Expectations

Another primary goal of RJPs is to lower unrealistically optimisticexpectations on the part of new hires that could stem from organiza-tions presenting overly positive information during the recruitment pro-cess (Breaugh & Starke, 2000). Meeting the expectations of applicantsis important; Fedor, Buckley, and Davis (1997) argued that discrepanciesbetween applicant expectations and what they experience on the job may


result in negative attributions towards the organization. These negativefeelings may lead individuals experiencing discrepancies to voluntarilyturnover. Applicant expectations are commonly separated into initial ex-pectations and met expectations. Initial expectations refer to level of appli-cant expectations after exposure to an RJP but before starting the job. Metexpectations represent the accuracy or degree to which applicant expecta-tions prior to starting the job match expectations experienced once on thejob. We included both initial and met expectations in this meta-analysis.Results from previous empirical research and reviews (e.g., Horner, Mob-ley, & Meglino, 1979; Phillips, 1998; Premack & Wanous; 1985; Wanous,1973) led us to predict that use of RJPs would be associated with lowerinitial expectations and greater met expectations. Further, expectations(both initial and met) were expected to partially mediate the relationshipbetween RJPs and voluntary turnover.

Perceptions of Honesty

An ancillary consequence of providing an RJP may be that applicantsappreciate the willingness of the organization to provide an open and hon-est assessment of the job and work environment. Organizations providingrealistic, and possibly negative, information may be seen as trustworthyand honest. Presumably an organization perceived as being honest duringrecruitment will foster loyalty and encourage employees to remain on thejob, and there is some evidence that organizational dishonesty may be as-sociated with higher turnover intentions and turnover (Cialdini, Petrova, &Goldstein, 2004; Schwepker, 1999). When the realistic information aboutthe job presented during recruitment matches experiences on the job, anemployee may feel that the organization has fulfilled part of the psycho-logical contract (Breaugh & Starke, 2000; Rousseau, 1995). Alternatively,a lack of information can be seen by applicants as an indicator of negativeorganizational characteristics such as a lack of honesty, professionalism,or interest in the candidate (Breaugh & Billings, 1988). Organizations thatfail to display honesty may inadvertently promote feelings of mistrust orambivalence for employees that could result in increased turnover. There-fore, we expected a positive relationship between RJPs and perceptionsof organizational honesty and that perceptions of honesty would partiallymediate the RJP-turnover relationship because those who view the orga-nization as more honest are less likely to quit (Cialdini et al., 2004).

Role Clarity

Role clarity, the degree to which an individual understands his or herrole on the job and in the organization, has been an observed consequence


of RJPs for more than 2 decades (Saks & Cronshaw, 1990; Wanous, 1980).By providing an accurate depiction of the job and work environment, RJPsprovide greater role clarity. RJPs decrease the chances of role ambiguityoccurring on the job, which thereby decreases the negative effects associ-ated with role ambiguity, such as turnover (Meglino, DeNisi, Youngblood,& Williams, 1988). Thus, we expected that RJPs would be associated withgreater perceived role clarity and that role clarity would partially mediatethe RJP–turnover relationship (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000).

Organizational Attraction

Another key role of an RJP is to provide applicants with a sense ofhow well they are likely to fit with the job and the work environment. Or-ganizational fit refers to the degree of similarity between an organizationand an individual’s values and goals and/or the job requirements and anindividual’s skills and interests. Individuals who find they are not a goodfit with their job or organization are more likely to be become unhappyand leave (Breaugh & Starke, 2000). The realistic information presentedin RJPs aids applicants in determining how well they may or may notfit with the organization and the previewed position before they accept ajob offer. Thus, RJPs may increase or decrease individual perceptions offit. However, individuals who view an RJP and feel they fit well with theorganization should be less likely to leave the organization. Despite itsconceptual/theoretical importance, in practice, RJP researchers have notassessed fit, instead typically measuring perceptions of job and organiza-tional attractiveness. Although RJPs could increase or decrease individualperceptions of attraction depending on how the RJP information affectsassessments of fit, the more realistic the information being presented, thegreater the number of applicants who may find the organization or jobunattractive (Saks, Wiesner, & Summers, 1996). This reduced attractionto the organization/job may result from the negative aspects of the real-istic information or an overestimation of the negative aspects of the job(Meglino, Ravlin, & DeNisi, 1997). Thus, we expected that attractivenesswould partially mediate the relationship between RJPs and turnover, be-cause those who still find the job attractive after receiving the RJP wouldbe more likely to fit with the organization and less likely to quit (Allenet al., 2007).

Possible Moderators

RJPs have been used in many contexts and taken a variety of forms.Moderators are important both conceptually and practically becausethey identify boundary conditions under which RJPs are more or less


effective. Previous research has focused on three moderators: study set-ting (i.e., field or lab), presentation medium, and timing in which theintervention is administered (Phillips, 1998; Premack & Wanous, 1985).Given the diversity of RJP applications, there is value in expanding thisset of boundary conditions. Conceptually, previous moderator analysis hasfocused on two characteristics of the RJP itself (medium and timing) andone methodological consideration (research setting). Although RJP designis certainly important, RJPs are not presented in a vacuum. They are givenin particular contexts to particular types of applicants, and it is likely thatelements of both may affect responses to an RJP. That is, different types ofapplicants for different types of jobs may respond differently to the sameRJP. Therefore, we considered nine moderators across four conceptualcategories derived from results of previous meta-analytic studies, quali-tative reviews, and logical arguments (Meglino, Ravlin, & DeNisi, 2000;Phillips, 1998; Premack & Wanous, 1985): RJP characteristics (presenta-tion medium, timing, and duration of exposure); applicant characteristics(experience and education); methodological considerations (study settingand timing of measurement of mediators); and context (industry type andInternet accessibility). Of note, the majority of these moderators (six ofnine) have not been reported in prior RJP meta-analyses.

RJP Characteristics

Characteristics of RJPs might be important largely because RJP de-sign affects the information provided and the opportunity for recipients toself-select. For example, exposure may impose constraints on the amountof realistic information applicants can access. Longer exposure time maylead to greater amounts of realistic information being presented to appli-cants; more information may allow for greater impact on expectations,role clarity, perceptions of honesty, and subsequent turnover. Previousresearch has already demonstrated that both the medium and the timingof an RJP affect relationships with turnover. Medium affects the nature ofinformation communication (Allen et al., 2007); both verbal and writtenRJPs have been found to have stronger effects on turnover. Verbal RJPsmay provide greater opportunity for interaction, increasing perceptions ofcredibility and honesty; written communication, although lean, is effec-tive at communicating specific information that may be used to manageexpectations and role clarity (Allen et al., 2007). Prehire timing of an RJPhas also been found to have stronger effects than posthire timing, perhapsbecause prehire timing allows recipients to self-select out more readilythan does posthire timing. In sum, we proposed that RJPs that are longer,delivered prehire, and communicated in verbal or written form would bemore strongly associated with outcomes.


Applicant Characteristics

Characteristics of applicants may also moderate the effects of RJPsbecause individuals bring different values, experiences, and expectationsthat may influence how they respond to RJPs. In particular, experienceand education may influence a priori job knowledge and alternative jobopportunities. For example, applicants with more job experience may al-ready possess extensive knowledge and information about a particular job;thus, RJPs might not be expected to have as large an effect on expecta-tions and role clarity. Applicants who have been exposed to relevant jobexperiences likely already have clear expectations and role information;thus, an RJP would be expected to have less impact on their self selectionand subsequent turnover. There may also be a role for perceived mobilityin that individuals who perceive themselves as more marketable, that isthose with greater experience and education, may be more likely to self-select out to pursue alternative opportunities. In sum, we proposed thatRJPs provided for employees with at least a college education rather thanthose with a high school education or less, and provided for entry leveljobs compared with those requiring experience, will be more stronglyassociated with outcomes.

Methodological Considerations

Prior research has demonstrated stronger relationships between RJPsand voluntary turnover in field as compared to lab studies. Timing of whenkey variables are measured also likely plays a role in the effectivenessof RJP interventions. This may be important given the variance acrossstudies in when variables such as attraction, honesty, expectations, androle clarity are measured. We expected RJPs provided posthire to haveweaker relationships with outcomes because the employee would havealready experienced exposure to job and organizational conditions, thuspotentially limiting the need for a realistic preview. In sum, we proposedthat RJP studies conducted in field rather than lab settings and thosemeasuring mediator variables prehire will be more strongly associatedwith outcomes.

Context

The information provided by an RJP may be more or less importantin some contexts than others. For example, industries characterized as“white collar” typically require more previous experience, education, andprofessional credentials than those characterized as “blue collar.” Appli-cants who have already been exposed to relevant job experiences likely


already have clear expectations and role information; thus, an RJP wouldbe expected to have less impact on their self selection and subsequentturnover. Applicants in industries that have fewer experience requirementsare likely to be more influenced by the realistic information provided byan RJP. Further, we suggested earlier that widespread availability of joband organization information accessible via the Internet could have re-duced the need for, and impact of, realistic previews. Because of this shiftof accessibility and use of online information, applicants may be exposedto additional information about an organization and job beyond what ispresented in an RJP. Therefore, RJPs may not be as important becauseof the increased exposure and information available to applicants throughonline sources. In sum, we proposed that RJPs provided in blue-collaras opposed to white-collar industries and those conducted prior to thewidespread accessibility of the Internet would be more strongly associ-ated with outcomes.

Method

This review incorporated both published and unpublished research,including journal articles, dissertations, theses, and technical reports. Theinclusion of works from sources other than peer-reviewed journals wasmade to minimize the “file drawer problem.” Works were primarily iden-tified and collected through the investigation of references used by previ-ous reviews, an electronic search of the PsychInfo, PsychArticles, Busi-ness Source Premier, and Dissertations Abstracts databases, and searchesof electronic conference programs from the Society of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology and the Academy of Management. Authorsof works not readily available were contacted to request copies of un-published studies, conference submissions, and technical reports. Initialsearch results used “RJP” and “realistic job previews” as keywords andresulted in 82 studies conducted between 1956 and 2009. Studies wereincluded in this review only if the study documented the implementa-tion and evaluation of a realistic job preview, contained at least onecomparison group, and reported sufficient data to calculate correlationcoefficients.

After eliminating studies that did not provide necessary information,the review contained 52 studies: 36 published journal articles, 9 disser-tations, 3 theses, and 4 technical reports or other unpublished works. Ofthese, 18 were included in Premack and Wanous (1985) and 34 wereincluded in Phillips (1998). Thus, this meta-analysis included 18 uniquestudies. When present, multiple RJP interventions were identified withina given study. As a result, the 52 studies produced 75 unique effects. Iden-tification of multiple RJP interventions within a given study was based on


the use of different samples, with different forms of media, and under dif-ferent experimental procedures. Two independent raters coded each studyfor RJP and study characteristics. Observed rater agreement was k = .86.All discrepancies were resolved through the review of studies in questionand mutual agreement.

Each study in this review was coded for overall turnover, voluntaryturnover, the proposed mediation mechanisms (acceptance, attraction, ini-tial and met expectations, perceptions of honesty, and role clarity), andpotential moderators (RJP timing, medium, setting, industry, exposuretime, experience required by job, education, measurement timing of me-diators, and Internet accessibility). Coding was only completed if thevariable was explicitly stated in a particular study using the term or termsprovided in this review.

Moderators

Moderators included in previous reviews were coded according to amodified scheme developed previously (Phillips, 1998). RJP setting refersto the location in which the RJP took place (laboratory or field study)with medium representing the form of media used to communicate RJPinformation (written, oral, video, online, audio, other, or combination) andtiming identifying when in the selection process applicants were exposedto the RJP (prehire or posthire). RJP exposure is the time applicantshad access to the RJP and was coded as lasting less than 1 hour ormore than 1 hour. Industry type was based on the nature of the openposition and coded as white collar, blue collar, military, education, orhealthcare. Experience requirements for the open position were coded asentry level or managerial. Participant education was also coded using themean participant level of education (high school diploma and equivalentor college level and beyond). Internet accessibility was coded based onthe publication date of the study. Because there is no definitive date forwhen applicants would have had access to online resources, a date waschosen that fell around the time the Internet became relatively accessibleand allowed for the retention of a reasonable number of studies in bothpre- and post-Internet periods. Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorerwere launched in 1994 and 1995, respectively, and approximately 14% ofAmerican adults (roughly 24 million) were online in 1995 (Pew Internet,2003). Therefore, studies were coded as those with publication dates of1994 and earlier as “pre-Internet” and studies with publication dates of1995 and later as “post-Internet.” Finally, timing of measures was coded asoccurring prehire (before job acceptance), posthire (after job acceptancebut before job start), or on the job.


Acceptance

Acceptance refers to whether or not an applicant accepted an offerof employment or continued in the recruitment process. In previous RJPstudies, individual choices are aggregated and reported as overall accep-tance rates. This variable was either directly reported or calculated usingdropout rate information provided within reviewed studies. Coding forthis variable only occurred when a study explicitly stated the acceptancerate or rate of attrition from the recruitment process. Applicant attritionand acceptance rates were combined due to the small number of studiesthat explicitly reported applicant attrition.

Expectations

Applicant expectations refer to the degree to which applicants’ expec-tations were lower than those of other participants (initial expectations) orthe accuracy of pre- and posthire expectations (met expectations). Acrossmeasures of expectations, items were generally measured using Likert-type items such as “I am going to be satisfied with this job” from Buckley,Fedor, Veres, Wiese, and Carraher (1998). Effect sizes were only cal-culated for studies that explicitly reported levels of participant/applicantexpectations. Of note, initial expectations could not be included in themeta-analytic path analysis because of an insufficient number of validcells in the associated correlation matrix.

Role Clarity

Role clarity represents the degree to which an employee’s role or tasksare unambiguous. Studies reporting role clarity generally measured thisvariable using self-report survey items. Sample role clarity items are, “Ihave a very good idea of what the job entails” and “I am well aware of theduties required of the job” (Saks & Cronshaw, 1990).

Perceptions of Organizational Honesty

Perceptions of organizational honesty refer to applicant’s perceptionsthat the organization is honest in the information it portrays and the levelto which it can be trusted. Honesty information was typically collectedthrough self-report surveys with items such as, “The organization wasdirect and open in dealing with me as a prospective employee” (Saks &Cronshaw, 1990).


Attraction

Attraction refers to an applicant’s reported level of attraction to theorganization. Typically, applicants expressed perceived organizational at-tractiveness through self-report measures involving Likert-type items.Coding for this variable occurred when studies explicitly reported theself-reported levels of perceived attraction of participants or applicants.

Overall Turnover

Overall turnover represents the number (or percentage) of individu-als who leave an organization for any reason. The time frame for whichturnover was reported varied across studies with all reported levels ofturnover included within the calculated effect size. All turnover informa-tion, including data that were explicitly reported as voluntary turnover, wasincluded within this variable effect size. Studies were coded for turnoverif they reported employee turnover, voluntary turnover, or survival rates.

Voluntary Turnover

Voluntary turnover was typically assessed within studies by exit in-terviews or determined by the authors of the studies. Only informationexplicitly identified by the authors of a given study as voluntary turnoveror “quits” was included. This variable did not include measures of overallturnover or survival rates.

Meta-Analytic Procedures

The Hunter-Schmidt Meta-Analysis Package (Schmidt & Le, 2004)was used to calculate meta-analytic estimates. Once effect sizes weregenerated, tests of homogeneity were applied to each effect size. We usedthree common indicators of homogeneity: residual standard deviation,variance accounted for by sampling error, and chi-square test or Q assuggested by Hunter, Schmidt, and Jackson (1982). Tests for moderatoreffects used a weighted least squares regression approach and were onlyconducted for effects that showed sufficient heterogeneity.

Path Analysis of Meta-Analytic Correlations

To evaluate the relationships specified in the proposed model(Figure 1), the calculated meta-analytic correlations were subjected topath analysis. The full correlation matrix used for the path analysiswas created using studies included in this review, previous meta-analytic


Figure 1: Maximum-Likelihood Parameter Estimates for the ProposedMultiple Mediation Model.

Note. Statistics are standardized path coefficients (with standard errors in parentheses);N = 339; *p < .05.

reviews, and studies containing correlations of target variables. First, cor-relations generated from this meta-analysis were used to fill all possiblecells. These cells included all those in which RJP was a primary variable.Second, results from published meta-analytic reviews were used to fill asmany remaining cells as possible. These included relationships betweenvoluntary turnover and met expectations (Griffeth et al. 2000), attraction(Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005), and role clarity (Bauer,Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007). Third, remaining correla-tions were identified from studies used in this review. Specifically, thecorrelation between perceptions of honesty and attraction was taken fromZuliani (1988) and the correlation between perceptions of honesty androle clarity was taken from Saks and Cronshaw (1990). Finally, for theremaining cells, published results from primary studies outside the RJPliterature were used to generate meta-analytic estimates of the necessarycoefficients. Specifically, the relationship between met expectations andattraction was based on results from two studies (Vigoda, 2000; Vigoda& Cohen, 2002), the relationship between met expectations and role clar-ity was based on results from five studies (Babakus, Cravens, Johnston,& Moncreif, 1999; Blau, 1988; Grant, Cravens, Low, & Moncreif, 2001;Naumann, Widmier, & Jackson, 2000; Saks, Wiesner, & Summers, 1994),


TABLE 1Meta-Analytic Results for the Effects of RJPs

Lower UpperOutcome confidence confidencevariable r k N interval interval Q df p

Acceptance .02∗ 24 6,601 .01 .04 96.84 23 .01Attraction −.10∗ 15 1,585 −.16 −.03 65.99 14 .01Initial

expectations−.12∗ 16 2,538 −.17 −.08 135.42 15 .01

Met expectations −.01 9 2,084 −.06 .04 124.86 8 .01Perceptions of

honesty.11∗ 10 1,554 .05 .17 22.37 9 .01

Role clarity .10∗ 5 871 .02 .21 72.20 4 .01Turnover −.04∗ 48 17,230 −.05 −.02 179.38 47 .01Voluntary

turnover−.07∗ 15 4,924 −.10 −.04 24.59 14 .04

Note. *indicates that the confidence intervals do not contain zero for the observed effects.

the relationship between perceptions of organizational honesty and volun-tary turnover was based on results from two studies (Hemdi & Nasurdin,2006; Hicks & Klimoski, 1987), and the relationship between attractive-ness and role clarity was based on a single study (Harris, Artis, Walters, &Licata, 2006). Sample size was handled by computing the harmonic meanof the respective cells used in the analysis (e.g., Burke & Landis, 2003;Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995).

Given that the model specifying partial mediation depicted in Figure 1would lead to a test with zero degrees of freedom, we chose to complete theanalyses employing a product-of-coefficients approach for testing modelsinvolving multiple mediators (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). This approachinvolves computation of the indirect effect of each mediator in the presenceof all other mediators. The resulting parameters are then used as input toa Sobel test by which the statistical significance of each mediator may beevaluated. All models were tested using EQS 6.1 and produced parametersbased on maximum likelihood (ML) estimation techniques.

Results

Meta-analytic correlations and confidence intervals are reported inTable 1 along with total sample size and number of included effectsizes. Confidence intervals were used to interpret the strength of the re-ported effects of RJP on turnover and each mechanism. Use of RJPs wasrelated to lower voluntary turnover (r = −.07), decreased overall turnover(r = −.04), increased acceptance (r = .02), lower levels of attraction (r =


TABLE 2Meta-Analytic Correlations Between Variables in Path Analyses

Perceptions ofMet organizational Role

Variable RJP expectations honesty Attractiveness clarity

Met expectations −.01a

k, N 9,2084Perceptions of

organizationalhonesty

.11a .01c

k, N 10,1554 2,272Attractiveness −.10a .44d .38c

k, N 15,1585 2,594 1,233Role clarity .10a .30d .45c .44d

k, N 5,871 5,685 1,60 1,140Voluntary

turnover−.07a −.15b −.38d −.14b −.11b

k, N 15,4924 8,1486 2,522 10,2157 4,315

Note. a indicates a meta-analytic r derived from this meta-analytic review; b indicates a meta-analytic r derived from a single meta-analytic review; c indicates meta-analytic r derivedfrom studies included in this review; d indicates meta-analytic r derived from studies notincluded in this review.

−.10), lower initial expectations (r = −.12), lower met expectations (r =−.01), greater perceptions of honesty (r = .11), and higher role clarity(r = .10). Of note, confidence intervals for all relationships did not in-clude zero with the exception of met expectations. These meta-analyticresults match closely with results found in previous meta-analytic reviews,with the exception of the relationships between RJPs and acceptance (r =−.03), and RJPs and perceptions of honesty (r = .05) reported by Phillips(1998).

Path Analysis

The correlation matrix and associated sample sizes and number ofstudies are presented in Table 2. Figure 1 includes maximum-likelihoodparameter estimates associated with the test of the multiple mediationmodel (n = 339, the harmonic mean of the cells in Table 2). For sim-plicity, the intercorrelations between residuals of the mediator variablesare not included in the figure. Given that all mediator covariances are notlikely to be solely a function of a single antecedent and such residual co-variances are likely substantial, intercorrelations between mediators resid-uals were fixed to zero following recommendations of Preacher & Hayes(2008).


TABLE 3Variance Accounted for by Moderators at the RJP-Level Derived From

Regression Analysis

Variables

Initial Perceptions VoluntaryModerators Acceptance Attraction expectations of honesty Turnover turnover

Setting 14∗ 12∗ 6∗ 1∗ 1∗ 6∗

Medium 31∗ 19∗ 8∗ 3∗ 10∗ 35∗

Timing – 9∗ 4∗ 1∗ 5∗ 7∗

Exposure 1∗ – 5∗ – 1∗ 1∗

Job industry 8∗ – 5∗ 9∗ 8∗ 4∗

Experience – – 17∗ 9∗ 1∗ –Education 4∗ – 9∗ – 1∗ 10∗

Internetaccessibility

18∗ 9∗ 5∗ 17∗ 3∗ –

Timing ofmeasure

– 4∗ 1∗ 5∗ – –

R2 76∗ 53∗ 60∗ 45∗ 30∗ 63∗

Note. Values represent percentages. ∗p < .05. Dashes indicate the moderator was not included in theanalysis.

The specific indirect effects observed for the tested model were a1b1 =.002 (through met expectations), a2b2 = .015 (through role clarity), a3b3 =−.052 (through perceptions of honesty), and a4b4 = −.009 (throughattraction). Results of Sobel tests associated with each mediator re-vealed a significant effect for only perceptions of honesty (Z = −2.01,p = .04).

Moderator Analyses

Tests of homogeneity identified that effect sizes associated with alloutcomes contained sufficient unaccounted variance to allow for moder-ator investigations. The variance accounted for by moderators for eachobserved effect is reported in Table 3. Moderators accounted for 76% ofthe variance observed in acceptance, 53% of the variance in attraction,60% of the variance in initial expectations, 45% of the variance in per-ceptions of honesty, 30% of the variance in overall turnover, and 63%of the variance in the observed relationship between RJPs and voluntaryturnover. All of the R2s were statistically significant (p < .05). Tables 4through 9 report results of the moderators on the relationships betweenuse of RJPs and acceptance, attraction, initial expectations, perceptions ofhonesty, total turnover, and voluntary turnover. An investigation of mod-erator effects was not conducted for met expectations and role clarity dueto the relatively small number of effect sizes.


TABLE 4Meta-Analytic Results of Moderators of RJPs and Acceptance

Lower 95% Upper 95%Level of confidence confidence

Moderator moderator r k N interval interval

SettingField .05 12 4,905 .03 .09Laboratory −.06 12 1,696 −.09 .01

MediumOral −.07 4 490 −.12 .05Written .02 14 3,262 −.01 .06Video .11 3 1,628 .01 .21Combined −.07 3 1,221 −.15 .09

ExposureLess than 1 hour .07 5 2,047 .02 .15More than 1 hour −.14 2 221 −.72 .73

Job industryWhite collar −.06 18 3,433 −.10 −.02Blue collar .11 2 1,277 −.24 .47Military .11 2 1,493 −.21 .44Healthcare .01 2 398 −.63 .65

EducationHigh school .07 4 3,643 .03 .13College −.05 13 1,848 −.09 .02

Internet1900–1994 .03 19 6,362 .01 .051995–present −.24 5 239 −.35 −.13

Note. Only moderators are included for which k ≥ 2 per level.

On average, RJP characteristics accounted for approximately 25% ofthe variance explained by moderators across all outcomes. Longer RJPexposure tended to be associated with stronger effects (e.g., voluntaryturnover with exposure more than one hour: r = −.06; voluntary turnoverwith exposure less than 1 hour: r = −.02), with the exception of initialexpectations. However, in all cases confidence intervals overlapped. Withregard to turnover, posthire RJPs tended to be associated with strongereffects (e.g., voluntary turnover with posthire RJP: r = −.10; voluntaryturnover with prehire RJP: r = −.06). The confidence intervals did notoverlap with respect to total turnover but did overlap with respect to vol-untary turnover. With regard to other outcomes, prehire RJPs tended to beassociated with stronger effects; however, in all cases confidence intervalsoverlapped. When there were enough studies to evaluate, oral RJPs tendedto have stronger effects; however, confidence intervals overlapped in allcases.


TABLE 5Meta-Analytic Results of Moderators of RJPs and Attraction


Moderator moderator r k n interval interval

SettingField .05 2 305 −.69 .78Laboratory −.12 13 1,280 −.19 −.07

MediumWritten −.19 9 686 −.29 −.12Online −.01 4 624 −.14 .12

TimingPrehire −.14 12 1,165 −.21 −.08Posthire .08 2 193 −.73 .83

Internet1900–1994 −.18 5 550 −.26 −.101995–present −.01 10 1,035 −.07 .04

Timing of measurePrehire −.09 7 457 −.17 −.01Posthire −.37 3 259 −.47 .25


Across outcomes, applicant characteristics accounted for approxi-mately 10% of the variance explained by moderators. With regard toeducation, RJPs provided to college-educated samples tended to havestronger effects (e.g., voluntary turnover with college educated samples:r = −.11; voluntary turnover with high school educated samples: r =−.07). With regard to experience, RJPs with managerial samples tendedto have stronger effects (e.g., total turnover with managerial samples: r =−.16; total turnover with entry level samples: r = −.04). In all cases forapplicant characteristics as moderators, confidence intervals overlapped.

Across outcomes, methodological characteristics accounted for ap-proximately 10% of the variance explained by moderators. With regardto research setting, field studies tended to have larger effects on turnoverand honesty (e.g., voluntary turnover with field studies: r = −.07; volun-tary turnover with lab studies: r = −.05). For other outcomes, lab studiestended to have stronger effects. Posthire measurement of outcomes tendedto be associated with stronger effects (e.g., honesty with posthire mea-surement: r = .19; honesty with prehire measurement: r = .11). Despiteany trends for methodological characteristics as moderators, however, allconfidence intervals overlapped.


TABLE 6Meta-Analytic Results of Moderators of RJPs and Initial Expectations



SettingField −.09 10 1,927 −.15 −.04Laboratory −.21 6 611 −.34 −.12

MediumOral −.23 4 602 −.38 −.11Written −.07 8 1,509 −.13 −.01Combined −.13 2 237 −.97 .70

TimingPrehire −.14 11 2,077 −.20 −.10Posthire −.03 5 461 −.16 .11

ExposureLess than 1 hour −.25 5 561 −.37 −.13More than 1 hour −.12 2 412 −.75 .51

Job industryWhite collar −.19 11 1,386 −.26 −.14Blue collar −.02 3 680 −.18 .15Education −.07 2 472 −.66 .52

ExperienceEntry level −.07 14 2,438 −.11 −.04Manager .52 2 100 −.73 .95

Internet1900–1994 −.10 11 1,620 −.15 −.061995–present −.16 5 918 −.22 −.09

Timing of measurePrehire −.08 6 1,172 −.13 −.03Posthire −.27 3 321 −.37 .17On the job −.12 6 933 −.18 −.07


Across outcomes, context accounted for approximately 15% of thevariance explained by moderators. With regard to Internet availability,effects were stronger for more recent studies with respect to acceptance,initial expectations, and honesty (e.g., honesty with more recent studies:r = .15; honesty with older studies: r = .10), but weaker for more recentstudies with respect to attraction and overall turnover (e.g., overall turnoverwith more recent studies: r = −.02; overall turnover with older studies:r = −.04). With respect to industry type, RJP effects were stronger onvoluntary turnover in white collar (r = −.06) as opposed to blue collar(r = −.02) contexts and the opposite was true for total turnover (r = −.04


TABLE 7Meta-Analytic Results of Moderators of RJPs and Perceptions of Organizational

Honesty



SettingField .12 6 1,301 .04 .18Laboratory .10 4 253 −.11 .30

MediumWritten .07 2 261 −.75 .86Video .11 3 1,020 −.002 .25Combined −.04 2 139 −.84 .74

TimingPrehire .12 7 864 .01 .17Posthire .10 3 690 −.06 .27

Job industryWhite collar .18 4 212 −.04 .41Blue collar .10 2 477 −.49 .69Military .07 3 723 −.09 .23

ExperienceEntry level .06 7 1,034 −.01 .14Manager .19 2 500 −.38 .77

Internet1900–1994 .10 8 1,300 .05 .151995–present .15 2 254 .03 .27

Timing of measurePrehire .11 5 445 .02 .20Posthire .19 2 500 −.11 .28On the job .04 3 609 −.04 .12


and r = −.15 for white collar and blue collar, respectively) and most otheroutcomes. Confidence intervals for the context moderators overlapped forall but the effects of industry type on total turnover.

Discussion

This research makes a number of important contributions to the RJPliterature, including using meta-analytically derived estimates in a pathanalysis to assess the relative impact of key theoretical mechanisms in-tended to explain the RJP–voluntary turnover relationship; updating pre-vious meta-analyses of the RJP–turnover relationship with the inclusionof additional studies published since the last review; and expanding the


TABLE 8Meta-Analytic Results of Moderators of RJPs and Overall Turnover


Moderator moderator r k N interval interval

SettingField −.04 40 15,134 −.06 −.02Laboratory −.02 8 2,096 −.07 .04

MediumOral −.15 5 578 −.27 −.04Written −.05 22 6,149 −.07 −.02Video .04 12 8,002 −.06 −.01Other −.02 6 1,642 −.08 .05Combined .05 3 859 −.10 .20

TimingPrehire −.02 36 13,674 −.04 −.01Posthire −.08 12 3,556 −.12 −.04

ExposureLess than 1 hour −.03 15 2,981 −.07 .01More than 1 hour −.04 7 3,288 −.08 .01

Job industryWhite collar −.04 25 5,879 −.07 −.02Blue collar −.15 6 923 −.24 −.07Military −.02 10 9,433 −.05 .01Education .04 3 298 −.21 .30Healthcare −.19 3 308 −.44 .06

ExperienceEntry level −.04 32 14,984 −.05 −.01Manager −.16 3 516 −.35 .03

EducationHigh school −.03 9 8,365 −.06 −.01College −.04 11 1,762 −.09 .01

Internet1900–1994 −.04 42 15,794 −.06 −.021995–present −.02 6 1,436 −.07 .03


search for moderators that further understanding of the conditions underwhich RJPs are more or less effective.

Review of Results

Overall, meta-analytic results for the RJP–turnover relationship (cor-rected r = −.07 for voluntary turnover) were quite consistent with


TABLE 9Meta-Analytic Results of Moderators of RJPs and Voluntary Turnover



SettingField −.07 12 3,828 −.09 −.02Lab −.05 3 1,096 −.13 .03

MediumWritten −.09 6 2,091 −.14 −.03Video −.09 3 846 −.24 .06Combined .04 2 741 −.43 .51Other −.05 2 279 −.82 .71

TimingPrehire −.06 10 3,804 −.09 −.02Posthire −.10 5 1,120 −.18 −.02

ExposureLess than 1 hour −.02 4 1,100 −.11 .08More than 1 hour −.06 3 974 −.20 .07

Job industryWhite collar −.06 8 2,404 −.10 −.01Blue collar −.02 3 495 −.23 .16Military −.08 3 1,870 −.18 .02

EducationHigh school −.07 2 1,636 −.39 .24College −.11 5 1,386 −.19 −.04


previous reviews (i.e., r = −.09, McEvoy & Cascio, 1985; r = −.06,Premack & Wanous, 1985; r = −.06, Phillips, 1998), suggesting that RJPshave remained a low investment strategy for modestly influencing turnoverdespite evolving workplaces and employment systems and the growth inreadily available information online. Meta-analytic results also showedthat RJPs are related to each of the theoretical mediating mechanisms pro-posed in the literature; however, RJPs are most strongly related to percep-tions of organizational honesty (r = .11), role clarity (r = .10), and attrac-tion (r = −.10). These results generally follow those reported in previousreviews (Phillips, 1998; Premack & Wanous, 1985). When compared tothe most recent review by Phillips (1998), all relationship directions werethe same with the exception of acceptance, which was observed as r = .02in this review and by Phillips as r = −.03. Observed relationship strengthswere comparable across all other outcomes. Specifically, Phillips reportednegative relationships between RJPs and initial expectations (r = −.18),


met expectations (r = −.02), turnover (r = −.05), and voluntary turnover(r = −.06), and a positive relationship between RJPs and climate for hon-esty (r = −.05). Results from Phillips (1998) reveal a stronger negativerelationship with initial expectations (r = −.18) than this study (r = −.12).Conversely, a stronger relationship was observed between perceptions ofhonesty and RJPs for this study (r = .11) than was observed by Philips(r = .05).

Results of the path analysis reveal that honesty was the only significantmediating mechanism between RJPs and voluntary turnover, and thatthis effect fully mediated this relationship. These findings suggest thatperceptions of honesty play a far more important role in understanding theeffects of RJPs than previously realized, as evidenced by the relatively fewstudies investigating this mechanism relative to most of the other proposedmediators. Previous conceptual work has suggested that the effectivenessof RJPs is based primarily on managing expectations, followed closelyby variations of applicants self-selecting out of the process. These resultssuggest reevaluating these conceptualizations to more fully consider howRJPs influence individuals’ perceptions about the hiring organization. Forexample, extensive research on perceived organizational support (POS)shows that perceptions that an organization cares about and supportsemployees are related to important outcomes such as turnover (e.g., Allen,Shore, & Griffeth, 2003). It may be that perceptions of honesty engenderedby RJPs are one way organizations signal employees about such caring andsupport. Similarly, research on psychological contract breach (Rousseau,1995) suggests that honesty during recruitment would lead new employeesto be less likely to see their psychological contract as being breached.Future research is needed on the role of these types of social exchangesin understanding RJPs.

Our findings also provide boundary conditions advancing understand-ing of when RJPs are more or less effective at influencing turnover, al-though overlapping confidence intervals suggest caution in interpretingthese results. Consistent with prior research, effects on voluntary and to-tal turnover were stronger in field setting than lab settings; it may bethat lab settings are limited in the ability to recreate conditions similarenough to the complexities of quitting a job. Also consistent with priorresearch, oral RJPs were more effective than other presentation modesat influencing total turnover (Phillips, 1998), although there were notsufficient studies to assess the effects of oral presentation on voluntaryturnover. Oral presentation modes may be effective because, accordingto research on media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984), face-to-facecommunication is the richest form. Contrary to some prior research, ourfindings suggest that posthire RJPs were somewhat more effective thanprehire ones at influencing voluntary and total turnover. This finding is


consistent with the idea that honesty is a key mechanism linking RJPs andturnover; prehire RJPs would be more likely to affect self-selection mech-anisms; perceptions of honesty could likely be influenced at any time.Consistent with prior research, longer RJPs were slightly more effec-tive at influencing voluntary and involuntary turnover than shorter RJPs.We did not find strong support for the idea that greater Internet acces-sibility would make more recent RJPs less effective at influencing totalturnover (not enough recent studies assessed voluntary turnover); thus,it appears that even with the greater job and organization informationavailable through the Internet, RJPs still provide useful information toapplicants.

Theoretical Contributions

Taken together, these findings suggest that a signaling-based theory ofRJPs may be a particularly fruitful avenue for future research that offersthe opportunity to extend understanding of the effects of RJPs beyondthe traditional focus on met expectations and self-selection. Signalingtheory (Spence, 1973) focuses on the communication of information toinfluence decision making under conditions of information asymmetryand suggests that signaling is particularly important when there are infor-mation asymmetries about quality and intent (Connelly, Certo, Ireland,& Reutzel, 2011). In the context of RJPs, job seekers have imperfect in-formation about unobservable job and work environment attributes, suchas job characteristics and organizational culture. During the recruitmentprocess, organizations and their agents send numerous signals about theseattributes. Because signals are most important when incentives for verac-ity are weak (Spence, 1973), RJPs may provide particularly key infor-mation. We think it is likely that job seekers may reasonably questionthe complete veracity of publically available information and recruitmentcommunication because organizations have a vested interest in creatingand maintaining a positive public image.

We argue that RJPs serve a signaling function in two primary ways:instrumental and symbolic (Highhouse, Thornbury, & Little, 2007). In-strumentally, the information included in an RJP provides signals aboutpreviously unobserved work and environmental characteristics that re-duce uncertainty. This instrumental function aids job seekers in man-aging expectations, mobilizing coping resources, or self-selecting, andhas been represented by the bulk of RJP research to date. Symbolically,the act of providing an RJP also signals something about unobservableorganizational characteristics such as organizational honesty, organiza-tional support, and care for employees. Unfortunately, this symbolic func-tion has received less attention. This result suggests that the symbolic


function could be as important, or even more important, than the instru-mental function and should be the subject of future research.

This signaling perspective on RJPs suggests other interesting opportu-nities for future RJP research. For example, research is needed on preciselywhat different recruitment messages (such as RJPs) signal to job seekersin terms of unobservable organizational attributes such as honesty, sup-port, caring, or social exchange. A signaling perspective may present anew way to view research on RJP delivery as well. Prior research on de-livery method has tended to focus on media characteristics, but perhapsthe delivery method itself also serves a signaling function. That is, orallypresented RJPs may signal positive organizational attributes to job seekersas compared to written RJPs. Signaling may also provide a novel perspec-tive on RJP timing. An expectations management perspective implies thatRJPs must be given prehire; however, our results suggest this may not bethe case. If signaling organizational honesty is a key mechanism under-lying RJPs, then timing may not be critical. A signaling perspective mayalso suggest that RJPs given more than once may be more effective asthe frequency and consistency of signals increases signaling effectiveness(Connelly et al., 2011). Perhaps providing multiple RJPs (e.g., both beforeand after hiring) would result in a stronger signaling effect.

Signaling theory also suggests that some receivers interpret signalsdifferently than others (Connelly et al., 2011; Spence, 1973). Althoughprevious RJP research has examined the moderating role of a few in-dividual differences (such as work experience), a signaling perspectivesuggests a far more nuanced investigation into what types of individualsrespond in what manner to which types of signals under which circum-stances. A more fine-grained analysis of these boundary conditions mayuncover populations or circumstances under which RJPs result in moresubstantial effect sizes than those that have typically been reported. Whenevaluating a job and organization, applicants make probability assess-ments about unobservable attributes based on observable signals. In part,these probability assessments are based on previous experiences, explain-ing why previous job market experiences may affect responses to RJPs. Itmay also be the case that previous exposure to RJPs in other job settingsadjusts these probability assessments. The extent to which previous re-cruitment messages and RJPs have displayed what Connelly et al. (2011)call signal fit (i.e., the fit between signals and underlying attributes) mayaffect responses to an RJP and may be a promising avenue for futureresearch.

One issue that previous research has largely ignored is the factorsleading organizations to offer RJPs. There are costs associated withmanipulating signals (e.g., providing an RJP). For example, Spence(1973) suggested there might be monetary costs, time investments, and


physical costs associated with signaling; however, signaling costs may bea prerequisite to obtaining the most preferred applicants and to fitting theright applicants to the right jobs. Signaling theory suggests that frequencyof being in the recruiting market will be positively related to investmentin acquiring signaling reputations. Research is needed to assess whetherfrequency of recruiting is, in fact, related to offering an RJP. Further,organizations with prominent reputations may be able to invest less insignaling because job seekers will perceive that they have more informa-tion about quality. Thus, research is needed on possible differences in themarginal signaling costs for different organizations. A final interestingproposition associated with signaling theory is that if any particular signalis extremely effective, all organizations will invest in it, and hence it willcease to serve a useful signaling function. Thus, the utility of RJPs maydepend on the extent of adoption in a particular industry, job type, orgeographic region.

Finally, the application of signaling theory to RJPs represents an ex-tension to research and thinking about signaling. Connelly et al. (2011)note that signaling research focuses mainly on the intentional commu-nication of positive qualities and attributes. However, in the context ofRJPs, signaling takes the form of intentionally communicating negativequalities and attributes, but with the expectation that communicating thisnegative information may provide positive instrumental and symbolic sig-nals about the organization. Researchers may want to consider whetherthere are other contexts in which signaling theory might help explain whyorganizations voluntarily and intentionally communicate negative infor-mation and the results of doing so (e.g., voluntarily reporting an ethicalviolation or being transparent about poor financial performance).

Practical Implications

The results also provide practical implications for organizations con-sidering using RJPs to manage turnover. First, RJPs are modestly relatedto voluntary and total turnover, despite the proliferation of widely avail-able job and organizational information on the Internet. We agree withPremack and Wanous’ (1985) perspective that, despite the modest effectsizes, the low investment required to implement an RJP makes them acost-effective tool for managing turnover. Second, RJPs are also relatedto increased role clarity, increased perceptions of organizational honesty,and reduced initial expectations that make it more likely the job and orga-nization will meet individuals’ expectations. Role clarity and expectationsare important variables related to a variety of positive outcomes in theirown right; thus, organizations can use RJPs to manage these as well. Thekey role of honesty in this process also suggests that organizations should


investigate other mechanisms for signaling honesty to applicants and em-ployees. Third, RJPs reduce perceptions of organizational attractiveness.In situations where successfully recruiting a sufficient number of qualifiedapplicants is more challenging than retaining employees, RJPs may notbe an appropriate strategy. Finally, our signaling perspective suggests thatindividuals might respond differently to RJP signals. Similarly to researchdemonstrating the impact of customizing recruitment information in gen-eral (e.g., Dineen & Noe, 2009), RJPs that are customized to particularjob seekers may result in stronger effects.

In terms of implementing RJPs, both oral and written presentationmodes are effective at reducing turnover. RJPs presented posthire do notproduce significantly different effects than those presented prehire. Thisis particularly important because it enables organizations to benefit fromthe turnover-reducing effects of an RJP while mitigating the reduction inattraction associated with prehire RJPs. In sum, the most effective RJP de-sign appears to be an oral or written RJP delivered posthire and designedto signal organizational honesty. As noted earlier, a further recommen-dation is for organizations to consider offering multiple RJPs given thatsuch an approach might increase signal strength and consistency.

Limitations

A limitation of any meta-analysis is the reliance on existing primarystudies that may not provide complete or sufficient data. In this study,some of the reported results were based on relatively few effect sizes, andthe interpretation of such results must be made more cautiously, particu-larly in cases with divergent findings. The limitations associated with fewstudies should provide a road map to future researchers interested in clari-fying the boundary conditions under which RJPs are more or less effective.In a related vein, we were also forced to omit acceptance rates from themediating mechanism analyses because we could find no studies linkingacceptance rates to subsequent turnover; thus, we could not provide anempirically based estimate for path modeling. This is an important lim-itation because self-selection is a key theoretical mechanism potentiallylinking RJPs with subsequent turnover. Future research that incorporatesacceptance rates and turnover associated with RJPs is warranted, as thiswill aid in evaluating the relative importance of self-selection vis-a-visthe key honesty mechanism uncovered in this study.

A similar limitation is that lack of meta-analytic evidence for some re-lationships in the correlation matrix used to estimate path analyses forcedus to use estimates drawn from prior empirical studies, in some cases onlya small number of studies. Perhaps this result can serve as a foundationupon which to design research that directly focuses on these particular


variables and relationships. We were also limited in our assessment offit as a mediating mechanism because, although fit has been proposedas a theoretical mechanism, in practice the empirical evidence has reliedexclusively on assessments of attraction to the organization. Future re-search that explicitly incorporates the role of fit perceptions is warranted.It may also be the case that more extensive meditational chains explain theimpact of RJPs on turnover. For example, it is plausible that RJPs couldinfluence attractiveness and honesty, which in turn affect acceptance ratesand ultimately turnover. Future research that is designed to assess longercausal chains would be valuable.

Conclusion

We sought to investigate the mechanisms underlying the relationshipbetween RJPs and turnover, extend previous meta-analytic findings onRJPs, and investigate previously unexamined moderators. Through theuse of meta-analytic path analysis procedures, we observed that onlyperceptions of organizational honesty appear to mediate the relationshipwhen all mechanisms are included concurrently. This finding indicatesthe potential importance of the information and message presented bythe organization in RJPs and the possible benefits of adopting a signalingtheory perspective for directing future RJP research.

REFERENCES

References marked with one asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis andmarked with two asterisks indicate studies used to complete the meta-analytic correlationmatrix used in path analysis.

Allen DG, Bryant PC, Vardaman JM. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptionswith evidence-based strategies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 48–64.

Allen DG, Mahto R, Otondo RF. (2007). Web-based recruitment: Effects of information,organizational brand, and attitudes toward a web site on applicant attraction. Journalof Applied Psychology, 92, 1696–1708.

Allen DG, Shore LM, Griffeth RW. (2003). The role of perceived organizational supportand supportive human practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management,29, 99–118.

*Avner BK, Guastello SJ, Aderman M. (1982). The effect of a realistic job preview onexpectancy and voluntary versus involuntary turnover. Journal of Psychology, 111,101–107.

**Babakus E, Cravens DW, Johnston M, Moncrief WC. (1999). The role of emotionalexhaustion in sales force attitude and behavior relationships. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, 27, 58–70.

Barber AE. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


*Barber AE, Hollenbeck JR, Tower SL, Phillips JM. (1994). The effects of interview focuson recruitment effectiveness: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,79, 886–896.

**Bauer TN, Bodner T, Erdogan B, Truxillo DM, Tucker JS. (2007). Newcomer adjust-ment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents,outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707–721.

**Blau G. (1988). Testing the generalizability of a career commitment measure and itsimpact on employee turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 88–103.

*Bourgeois N. (2002). Factors influencing the effects of realistic job previews on appli-cant judgments of organizational attractiveness. Unpublished master’s thesis. TexasChristian University, TX.

Breaugh JA, Billings RS. (1988). The realistic job preview: Five key elements and theirimportance for research and practice. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2, 291–305.

Breaugh JA, Starke M. (2000). Research on employee recruitment: So many studies, somany remaining questions. Journal of Management, 26(3), 405–434.

Bretz RD, Judge TA. (1998). Realistic job previews: A test of the adverse self-selectionhypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 330–337.

*Buckley MR, Fedor DB, Veres JG, Wiese DS, Carraher SM. (1998). Investigating new-comer expectations and job-related outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3),452–461.

*Buckley MR, Mobbs TA, Mendoza JL, Novicevic MM, Carraher SM, Beu DS. (2002).Implementing realistic job previews and expectation lowering procedures: A fieldexperiment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(2), 263–278.

*Buda R, Charnov BH. (2003). Message processing in realistic recruitment practices.Journal of Managerial Issues, 3, 32–326.

Burke MJ, Landis RS. (2003). Methodological and conceptual challenges in conducting andinterpreting meta-analyses. In Murphy KR (Ed.), Validity generalization: A criticalreview (pp. 287–309). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cialdini RB, Petrova PK, Goldstein N. (2004). The hidden costs of organizational dishon-esty. Sloan Management Review, 45, 67–73.

*Colarelli SM. (1984). Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic jobpreviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 61–68.

*Colarelli SM, Stumpf SS. (1990). Compatibility and conflict among outcomes of organi-zational entry strategies: Mechanistic and social systems perspectives. BehavioralScience, 35, 1–10.

Colquitt JA, LePine JA, Noe RA. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training moti-vation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 85, 678–707.

Connelly BL, Certo ST, Ireland RD, Reutzel CR. (2011). Signaling theory: A review andassessment. Journal of Management, 37, 39–67.

*Cronin BE. (forthcoming). The impact of realistic job information and informationsalience on applicant attraction in web-based recruitment. Unpublished work.

Daft RL, Lengel RH. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to manager informationprocessing and organizational design. In Straw B, Cummings LL (Eds.), Researchin Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

*Dean RA, Wanous JP. (1984). Effects of realistic job previews on hiring bank tellers.Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 61–68.

*Dilla BL. (1987). Descriptive versus prescriptive information in a realistic job preview.Journal of Vocational Review, 30, 33–48.


Dineen B, Noe R. (2009). Effects of customization on application decisions and applicantpool characteristics in Web-based recruitment context. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 94, 224–234.

*Dugoni BL, Ilgen DR. (1981). Realistic job previews and the adjustment of new employees.Academy of Management Journal, 24, 579–591.

*Erffmeyer RC, Erffmeyer ES. (1983). An application of a realistic job preview in aninstructional setting. Psychological Reports, 53, 939–944.

*Farr JL, O’Leary BS, Bartlett CJ. (1973). Effect of work sample test upon self-selectionand turnover of job applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 283–285.

Fedor DB, Buckley MR, Davis WD. (1997). A model of the effects of realistic job previews.International Journal of Management, 14, 211–221.

**Fisher CD, Gitelson R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict andambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320–333.

*Ganzach Y, Pazy A, Ohayun Y, Brainin E. (2002). Social exchange and organizationalcommitment: Decision-making training for job choice as an alternative to the realisticjob preview. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 55, 613–637.

*Gaugler BB, Thornton GC, III. (1990). Matching job previews to individual applicants’needs. Psychological Reports, 66, 643–652.

**Grant K, Cravens DW, Low GS, Moncrief WC. (2001). The role of satisfaction withterritory design on the motivation, attitudes, and work outcomes of salespeople.Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 29, 165–178.

**Griffeth RW, Hom PW, Gaertner S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlatesof employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for thenext millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488.

*Haccoun RR. (1978). The effects of realistic job previews and their position withinthe selection sequence on telephone operator behavior and attitudes. Unpublishedmanuscript, Behavioral Science Group, Bell Telephone of Canada, Montreal.

**Harris EG, Artis AB, Walters JH, Licata JW. (2006). Role stressors, service workerjob resourcefulness, and job outcomes: An empirical analysis. Journal of BusinessResearch, 59, 407–415.

*Hedley HH. (1985). The relationship of job preview to absenteeism, turnover, and jobsatisfaction of public school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College ofWilliam and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

**Hemdi MA, Nasurdin AM. (2006). Predicting turnover intentions of hotel employees:The influence of employee development human resource management practices andtrust in organization. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 8, 21–42.

*Hicks WD, Klimoski RJ. (1987). Entry into training programs and its effects on train-ing outcomes: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 542–552.

Highhouse S, Thornbury EE, Little IS. (2007). Social-identity functions of attraction toorganizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 134–146.

*Hom PW, Griffeth RW, Palich LE, Bracker JS. (1998). An exploratory investigation intotheoretical mechanisms underlying realistic job previews. PERSONNEL PSYCHOL-OGY, 51, 412–451.

*Horner SO, Mobley WH, Meglino BM. (1979). An experimental evaluation of the ef-fects of a realistic job preview on Marine recruit affect, intentions and behavior.Unpublished technical report, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Jackson GB. (1982). Meta-analysis. Cumulating research findingsacross studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.


*Ilgen DR, Seeley W. (1974). Realistic expectations as an aid reducing involuntary resig-nations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 452–455.

*Kraus E. (1992). The moderating effects of realism of course expectations on motivation,satisfaction, performance, and attrition (realistic course preview). Unpublished doc-toral dissertation, Hofstra University.

*Krausz M, Fox S. (1981). Two dimensions of a realistic preview and their impact upon ini-tial expectations, expectation fulfillment, satisfaction and intentions to quit. Journalof Occupational Behavior, 2, 211–216.

**Kristof-Brown AL, Zimmerman RD, Johnson EC. (2005). Consequences of individuals’fit at work: A meta-analysis or person-job, person-organization, person-group, andperson-supervisor fit. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 58, 281–342.

*Lent RW, Nota L, Soresi S, Ferrari L. (2007). Realistic major previews in the school-to-college- transition of Italian high school students. The Career Development Quar-terly, 56, 183–191.

*Lockman RF. (1980). The realistic job preview experiments at Great Lakes and San Diego.Paper no. 80–1885, Center for Naval Analysis, Alexandria, VA.

*Macedonia RM. (1969). Expectations, press, and survival. Unpublished doctoral disser-tation, New York University.

March JG, Simon HA. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley.*Martin AD. (1996). Exploring the upper limits of realistic job preview effectiveness for

performance of new employees. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne StateUniversity.

McEvoy GM, Cascio WF. (1985). Strategies for reducing employee turnover: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 342–353.

*Meglino BM, DeNisi AS, Ravlin EC. (1993). Effects of previous job exposure and sub-sequent job status on the functioning of a realistic job preview. PERSONNEL PSY-CHOLOGY, 46, 803–822.

*Meglino BM, DeNisi AS, Youngblood SA, Williams KJ. (1988). Effects of realistic jobpreviews: A comparison using an enhancement and a reduction preview. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 73, 259–266.

Meglino BM, Ravlin EC, DeNisi AS. (1997). When does it hurt to tell the truth? The effectsof realistic job reviews on employee recruiting. Public Personnel Management, 26,414–421.

Meglino BM, Ravlin EC, DeNisi AS. (2000). A meta-analytic examination of realistic jobpreview effectiveness: A test of three counterintuitive propositions. Human ResourceManagement Review, 10(4), 407–433.

*Miceli MP. (1985). The effects of realistic job previews on newcomer behavior: A labo-ratory study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 277–289.

**Naumann E, Widmier SM, Jackson DW. (2000). Examining the relationship betweenwork attitudes and propensity to leave among expatriate salespeople. Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management, 20, 227–241.

*Parmerlee M. (1982). A laboratory investigation of realistic job previews. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Pew Internet. (2003, December 22). Web use and communication activi-ties (America’s online pursuits). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2003/Americas-Online-Pursuits/4-Web-Use-and-Communication-Activities/1-Close-to-two thirds-of-Americans-now-go-online-to-access-the-Internet.aspx.

Phillips JM. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes:A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 673–690.


Ployhart RE, Schneider B, Schmitt N. (2006). Staffing organizations: Contemporary prac-tice and theory (3rd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing andcomparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,40, 879–891.

Premack SL, Wanous JP. (1985). A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments.Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(4), 706–719.

*Raphael MA. (1975). Work previews can reduce turnover and improve performance.Personnel Journal, 54, 97–98.

*Reilly RR, Tenopyr ML, Sperling SM. (1979). Effects of job previews on job acceptanceand survival of telephone operator candidates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,218–220.

*Reilly RR, Brown B, Blood MR, Malatesta CZ. (1981). The effects of realistic previews:A study and discussion of the literature. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 34, 823–834.

*Rosenburg MM. (1991). The effects of individual expectations and realistic job previews onorganizational commitment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont GraduateSchool, Claremont, CA.

Rousseau DM. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding writtenand unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rynes SL. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: a call for newresearch directions. In Dunnette MD, Hough LM(Eds.), Handbook of industrialand organizational psychology (2nd ed, pp. 399–444). Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press, Inc.

*Saks AM. (1989). An examination of the combined effects of realistic job previews, jobattractiveness and recruiter affect on job acceptance decisions. Applied Psychology:An International Review, 38, 145–163.

*Saks AM, Cronshaw SF. (1990). A process investigation of realistic job previews: Mediat-ing variables and channels of communication. Journal of Organizational Behavior,11, 221–236.

*Saks AM, Wiesner WH, Summers RJ. (1994). Effects of job previews on self-selectionand job choice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 297–316.

*Saks AM, Wiesner WH, Summers RJ. (1996). Effects of job previews and compensationpolicy on applicant attraction and job choice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49,68–85.

Schmidt FL, Le H. (2004). Software for the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods (p.42242). Iowa City, IA: Department of Management Organizations, University ofIowa.

Schwepker CH. (1999). An exploratory investigation of the relationship between ethicalconflict and salesperson performance. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,18, 435–446.

Spence AM. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355–374.

*Suszko MK, Breaugh JA. (1986). The effects of realistic job previews on applicant self-selection and employee turnover, satisfaction, and coping ability. Journal of Man-agement Review, 9, 1–16.

*Thornsteinson TJ, Palmer EM, Wilff C, Anderson A. (2004). Too good to be true? Usingrealism to enhance applicant attraction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19,125–137.

*Travagline AM. (2001). Online recruiting: Implementing Internet-based realistic jobpreviews. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University.


Trevor CO. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job sat-isfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal,44, 621–639.

**Vigoda E. (2000). Internal politics in public administration systems: An empirical exam-ination of its relationship with job congruence, organizational citizenship behavior,and in-role performance. Public Personnel Management, 29, 185–210.

**Vigoda E, Cohen A. (2002). Influence tactics and perceptions of organizational politics:A longitudinal study. Journal of Business Research, 55, 311–324.

Viswesvaran C, Ones DS. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysisand structural equations modeling. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 48, 865–885.

*Wanous JP. (1973). Effects of a realistic job preview on job acceptance, job attitudes, andjob survival. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 327–332.

Wanous JP. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection and socialization of new-comers. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

**Wanous JP, Poland TD, Premack SL, Davis KS. (1992). The effects of met expecta-tions on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 77, 288–297.

*Weitz J. (1956). Job expectancy and survival. Journal of Applied Psychology, 40, 245–247.

*Wiesner WH, Saks AM, Summers RJ. (1991). Job alternatives and job choice. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 38, 198–207.

*Youngberg CF. (1963). An experimental study of “job satisfaction” and turnover inrelation to job expectations and self-expectations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,New York University.

*Zaharia ES, Baumeister AA. (1981). Job preview effects during the critical initial em-ployment period. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 19–22.

*Zuliani RA. (1988). The realistic organizational preview and the joining decision process.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Copyright of Personnel Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

MECHANISMS LINKING REALISTIC JOB PREVIEWS WITH … · 866 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY andresearchtendstofocusonattractingasufﬁcientquantityandqualityof applicants to the organization and