International Journal of Selection and Assessment Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007

The Influence of Perceived

Interviewer and Job and
Organizational Characteristics
on Applicant Attraction and Job
Choice Intentions: The role of
applicant anxiety
Sally A. Carless and Amantha Imber
Psychology Department, Monash University, PO Box 197, Caulfield East 3142, Australia.
Sally.Carless@med.monash.edu.au

This study examined whether interviewer characteristics have (a) a direct influence on
applicant attraction and job choice intentions, (b) an indirect influence via job and
organizational characteristics, and (c) direct influence on applicant anxiety. A sample of
graduate applicants (N ¼ 450) was surveyed before a selection interview (Time 1) and
after the employment interview (Time 2). Structural equation modeling was used to
examine the hypothesized model. The results showed that interviewer characteristics
(warmth, unfriendliness, job knowledge, general competence and humor) had both a
direct and indirect effect on applicant attraction and job choice intentions. In addition,
interviewer characteristics had a significant positive impact on applicant anxiety.
Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

1. Introduction seek employment (Carless, 2003, 2007; Wang & Elling-

son, 2004).

S uccessful organizations of the future will attract,

engage, develop and retain the most talented
employees (O’Leary, Lindholm, Whitford, & Freeman,
2002). In tight labor markets, organizations are strug-
gling to attract high potential candidates. Greater
competition for talented employees has made organiza-
tions more aware of the need to ensure that selection
procedures do not lead to negative applicant reactions,
such as withdrawal from the selection process (Rynes,
Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991; Schmit & Ryan, 1997). On the
other hand, organizations are more cognizant of the
fact that selection procedures can lead to positive
applicant reactions, for instance, stronger desire to
The employment interview is the most popular
selection method used by organizations. A considerable
body of research has examined applicants’ reactions to
the employment interview (e.g., Harris & Fink, 1987;
Maurer, Howe, & Lee, 1992; Rynes et al., 1991; Rynes &
Miller, 1983). This research has focused on the impact
of interviewer characteristics such as personality traits
and behavior on diverse outcome variables. Specifically,
studies have shown that interviewer characteristics
such as empathy, friendliness, positive affect and show-
ing interest in the applicant have a positive influence on
applicant attraction to the organization and job accep-
tance intentions (Goltz & Giannantonio, 1995; Schmitt

& 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA
360
& Coyle, 1976; Turban & Dougherty, 1992). Single
purpose studies, however, have been criticized for
failing to assess the influence of job and organizational
characteristics (Posthuma, Morgeson, & Campion,
2002). Although several studies have jointly examined
the impact of interviewer characteristics and job and
organizational characteristics (e.g., Harris & Fink, 1987;
Macan & Dipboye, 1990; Powell, 1991; Taylor & Bergmann,
1987), their findings were inconclusive (Barber,
1998).
It is generally acknowledged that the selection inter-
view is an anxiety-provoking situation for applicants.
Applicant anxiety has serious implications, as it may
have a negative influence on interview score (Ayres &
Crosby, 1995; Cook, Vance, & Spector, 2000; McCarthy
& Goffin, 2004) and bias the predictive validity of
selection interviews (Schmit & Ryan, 1992). Applicants
who experience high levels of anxiety during the inter-
view may regard the organization as less attractive.
However, there has been scant attention given to
applicant anxiety in job interview contexts (McCarthy
& Goffin, 2004).
This study extends previous research by using a
unified perspective of applicant anxiety, job choice
attitudes and intentions with a sample of genuine
applicants (see Figure 1). The proposed model exam-
ines the direct influence of job and organizational
2
is
es
th
po
Hy
Pre job & org Post job & org
Pre attract-intent
Figure 1. Hypothesized model. Pre job & org, Pre-selection job and organizational characteristics; Post job & org, Post-selection job and
organizational characteristics; Pre attract-intent, Pre-selection attraction to the organization-intentions to accept a job; Post attract-intent, Post-
selection attraction to the organization-intentions to accept a job.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007
Sally A. Carless and Amantha Imber
characteristics on applicant job choice attitudes, the
direct and indirect influence of interviewer character-
istics job choice attitudes and the direct influence of
interviewer characteristics on applicant anxiety. Rela-
tively little is known about how these variables work in
tandem (Macan & Dipboye, 1990), a significant feature
of this study was the inclusion of applicant anxiety. The
following is a summary of the relevant literature and
our hypotheses.
1.1. Job and organizational characteristics
Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory of motivation has
been used to explain job application decisions. He
argued that motivation to exert effort toward some
particular end is a function of the individual’s perception
that he or she can obtain a particular outcome and the
attractiveness of those characteristics. Thus, according
to expectancy theory, job seekers are attracted to jobs
that provide them with challenging, meaningful work,
training and promotion opportunities, employment
security, friendly colleagues and a desirable work
environment. There is extensive evidence to support
the proposition that applicant perceptions of job
and organizational characteristics have a positive,
direct effect on applicant job choice attitudes (Boswell,
Pre-anxiety
Hypothesis 4
Interviewer
Post-anxiety
Hy
5
po
is
es
th
th
es
po
is
Hy
3
Hypothesis 1
Post attract-intent
& 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Interviewer and Job and Organizational Characteristics
Roehling, LePine, & Moynihan, 2003; Carless, 2003;
Harris & Fink, 1987; Powell, 1984, 1991; Taylor &
Bergmann, 1987; Turban, Forret, & Hendrickson,
1998). Hence, there is general agreement that expec-
tancy models of job choice successfully predict job
choice (Barber, 1998). Thus, the following hypothesis
was posed:
Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of job and organizational
characteristics will have a positive effect on organiza-
tion attraction and acceptance intentions.
In contrast to the direct effects of job and organiza-
tional characteristics, there is less agreement about the
indirect effect of interviewer characteristics, that is,
that interviewer characteristics have an impact on
applicant attitudes and intentions, via job and organiza-
tional characteristics.
1.2. Indirect effect of interviewer
It is argued that interviewers have an indirect effect on
applicant attraction; interviewer characteristics influ-
ence perceptions of job and organizational character-
istics, which in turn influence organization attraction
and acceptance intentions. The indirect effect hypoth-
esis is based on signaling theory (Spence, 1973).
According to this theory, due to limited information
about the job and organization, interviewers provide
applicants with signals that applicants interpret and utilize
to infer facts about the organization and its employees
(Barber, 1998; Rynes, 1991). For example, applicants may
believe that the friendliness of the interviewer is a
positive signal about the presence of attractive organiza-
tional characteristics, such as, friendly coworkers.
Elaboration likelihood model (ELM) can also be used
to explain the indirect effect hypothesis. ELM was
developed by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) to understand
the basic processes involved in persuasive communica-
tions. Petty and Cacioppo distinguished between cen-
tral processing of information, or careful consideration,
and peripheral processing of information, or paying of
little attention. An individual’s motivation and ability
determines mode of processing information. When
motivation and/or ability are high, central processing
occurs; when motivation and/or ability are low, periph-
eral processing occurs. Information is retained longer, is
more resistant to change and predicts behavior better
when information is processed via the central mode
compared with peripheral mode (Petty & Cacioppo,
1986).
Larsen and Phillips (2002) extended the application of
ELM to applicant attraction research. They proposed
that throughout the selection process, particularly
during the initial stages, job applicants are more likely
& 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
361
to engage in peripheral processing rather than central
processing. They suggested that applicants have limited
ability to evaluate the job and organization accurately
due to minimal contact with the organization. As job
applicants have limited information, they need to rely
on other salient cues, such as interviewer character-
istics, to make their evaluations about the attractive-
ness of the organization.
Although experimentally designed research has
supported the indirect effect hypothesis (Gilmore,
1989; Goltz & Giannantonio, 1995), evidence from
field studies is inconclusive. Using a longitudinal field
study design, Taylor and Bergmann found that whilst
interviewer characteristics during the campus interview
(Stage 1) explained significant variance in applicant
attraction and intentions, job and organizational char-
acteristics (operationalized as job information) were
non significant predictors. Later in the process,
after the site visit (Stage 3), job and organizational
attributes were significant predictors of attractiveness
and recruitment activities during the site visit (e.g., site
host interpersonal treatment) were not significant.
Similar findings were reported by Macan and Dipboye
(1990). They reported that evaluations of the job,
rather than interviewer or organizational characteris-
tics were significant predictors of job acceptance
intentions.
In field studies with similar designs, Harris and Fink
(1987) and Powell (1991) both found that after con-
trolling for job and organizational characteristics, inter-
viewer characteristics explained unique variance in job
acceptance intentions. In one of the few field studies to
use structural equation modeling (SEM), Turban et al.
(1998) reported that interviewer characteristics had an
indirect effect on attraction and intentions; the effect
was via job and organizational characteristics.
A possible reason for the inconsistent findings of
previous research is that interviewer characteristics
and job and organizational characteristics have been
inconsistently assessed. This makes it difficult to com-
pare studies and draw meaningful conclusions (Ryan &
Ployhart, 2000). In addition, some of the studies have
examined a limited aspect of the variables of interest
rather than the full spectrum. For example, due to time
limitations, Macan and Dipboye used single items to
assess job and organizational evaluations. Studies of
comparative effects need to ensure that the variables of
interest are operationalized with equal fidelity (Cooper
& Richardson, 1986). The current study offers an
opportunity to address these problems. Hence, the
following hypothesis was posed:
Hypothesis 2: Interviewer characteristics will have an
indirect effect on organization attraction and accep-
tance intentions; the influence will be via perceptions of
job and organizational characteristics.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007
362
1.3. Direct effect of interviewer
It is also feasible that interviewer characteristics have a
direct effect on organization attraction and acceptance
intentions; in other words, recruiter behaviors influ-
ence applicant job choice attitudes and intentions
(Liden & Parsons, 1986; Turban & Dougherty, 1992).
Several studies of individual recruiter characteristics
have provided support for the direct effect hypothesis.
Recruiter warmth or friendliness has been associated
with applicant attraction, with applicants more at-
tracted when the recruiter is friendly (Schmitt & Coyle,
1976). Turban and Dougherty (1992) found that
recruiter interest in the candidate was positively related
to applicant interest in the job. Finally, Ralston and
Brady (1994) reported that applicant communication
satisfaction with the interviewer was associated with
attraction to the job and intentions to accept an offer
for a second interview.
Qualitative research with actual job applicants also
supports the direct effect hypothesis (Rynes et al.,
1991). Interviews of applicants revealed that recruit-
ment personnel directly influenced judgements about
the attractiveness of the job. This suggests that inter-
viewer behavior has a direct effect on attraction and
intentions. Conversely, Turban et al. (1998) found no
support for a direct effect on interviewer behavior.
In this study we assessed the interviewer character-
istics of warmth, unfriendliness, competence, job
knowledge and humor. Thus, the following hypothesis
was posed:
Hypothesis 3: Interviewer characteristics will have a
direct, positive effect on organization attraction and
job acceptance intentions.
1.4. Applicant anxiety
The evaluative and competitive nature of the job
application process is likely to evoke feelings of anxiety
and apprehension (Rynes et al., 1991). The employment
interview, in particular, is likely to induce applicant
anxiety even in the most experienced and savvy appli-
cant. On the other hand, interviewer characteristics
may reduce the level of anxiety experienced by the
applicant. According to emotional contagion theory
(Hartfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1992) an emotion
experienced by one person (e.g., the interviewer) will
be ‘caught’ by another person (the applicant). Practi-
cally, this suggests that a warm, friendly interviewer is
likely to induce similar feelings in the applicant, and
therefore reduce anxiety. There is indirect support for
the application of emotional contagion theory to the
selection context. Studies have shown that positive
affect and humor decrease the level of anxiety experi-
enced (Boverie, Hoffman, Klein, McClelland, &
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007
Sally A. Carless and Amantha Imber
Oldknow, 1994; Gelkopf & Kreitler, 1996; Morreall,
1991; Newman & Stone, 1996). Unknown is whether
these findings generalize to the selection context.
Hence, the current study aims to address this gap in
the literature.
Applicant anxiety may influence perceived organiza-
tional attractiveness and subsequent job acceptance
intentions. Applicants who experience distress and
uneasiness during the interview, may then regard the
organization as less attractive and consequently be less
likely to accept a job offer (McCarthy & Goffin, 2004). A
recent meta-analysis of 86 studies has shown that
applicants who react positively to the selection pro-
cesses are more likely to view the organization favor-
ably and report stronger intentions to accept job offers
and recommend the employer to others (Hausknecht,
Day, & Thomas, 2004). Hence, with regard to applicant
anxiety the following hypotheses were posed:
Hypothesis 4: Interviewer characteristics will reduce the
level of applicant anxiety experienced.
Hypothesis 5: Applicant anxiety will have a negative
relationship with organization attraction and accep-
tance intentions.
1.5. The current study
There are a number of gaps in the literature that this
research addresses. First, in contrast to past research
on campus interviews, we studied selection interviews.
Second, we used SEM to examine the interrelationships
between the variables of study. Third, by using a pre-
and post-design we were able to assess attitudes before
selection. Finally, we followed Cooper and Richardson’s
(1986) recommendations for comparative research by
assessing the full range of interviewer and job and
organizational characteristics thought to be important
to applicants.
Prior research on the impact of interviewer char-
acteristics has almost exclusively focused on the cam-
pus interview (Barber, 1998; Rynes, 1991). These
interviews are generally brief and conducted on cam-
pus. Initial campus interviews tend to be recruitment-
focused, compared to interviews conducted later in the
process, which are more selection-focused (Eder,
1999). The focus of the interview influences applicant
perceptions of interviewer behavior (Stevens, 1998;
Turban & Dougherty, 1992) and intentions to pursue
a job (Barber, Hollenbeck, Tower, & Phillips, 1994). The
focus of this research was the selection interview with
an organization.
Various parties can serve as a recruiter, although
there is little current data about this. Twenty years
ago, Rynes and Boudreau’s (1986) survey of graduate
& 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Interviewer and Job and Organizational Characteristics
recruitment practices assumed that all campus inter-
views were undertaken by internal representatives. A
more recent study of graduate recruitment and selec-
tion practices reported that external organizations
assist with various aspects of recruitment including
the final interview (Carless, 2007). Others have re-
ported that peers, direct managers, and personnel staff
are used as interviewers (Di Milia, Smith, & Brown,
1994; Ryan, McFarland, Baron, & Page, 1999). The
evidence on the issue of applicant reactions to
interviewer function is scarce and inconclusive. Some
have found that recruiter function was unrelated to
intentions to accept a job offer or perceptions of
recruiter effectiveness (Connerley & Rynes, 1997;
Harris & Fink, 1987), while others have found line
recruiters were perceived more positively than human
resource recruiters (Rynes et al., 1991; Taylor &
Bergmann, 1987).
The current study responded to the call for research
that uses SEM to examine the interrelationships
between interviewer characteristics, job and organiza-
tional characteristics and applicant job choice attitudes
(Macan & Dipboye, 1990). The majority of studies on
applicant reactions have used multiple regression tech-
niques, in particular, hierarchical multiple regression.
The latter technique has been used to show that after
controlling for job and organizational characteristics,
selection procedures explain additional variance in
applicant attitudes and intentions (e.g., Harris & Fink,
1987; Powell, 1991). These findings have been taken as
evidence of support for the indirect effect hypothesis.
However, hierarchical multiple regression provide a
weak test of the indirect effect hypothesis. In contrast,
SEM is a more advanced technique that can test the fit
of a hypothesized model and thus provides a strong
test, simultaneously, of the direct and indirect effect
hypotheses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
Ryan and Ployhart (2000) noted that few studies on
applicant reactions include pre-selection measures.
Without assessing attitudinal measures before partici-
pating in the selection procedure (e.g., initial attraction
to the organization), it is difficult to identify causal
relationships and the impact of the interviewer on
applicant attitudes (Judge, Higgins, & Cable, 2000).
Thus, we assessed the following variables before selec-
tion: anxiety, job and organizational characteristics,
organization attraction, and job acceptance intentions.
Finally, measures of interviewer characteristics and
job and organizational characteristics were used to
provide a comprehensive assessment of these variables
(Cooper & Richardson, 1986). Consonant with Barber’s
(1998) recommendations we sought to assess the full
range of interviewer and job and organizational char-
acteristics that are thought to be important to appli-
cants. This was achieved by adding items to commonly
used scales.
& 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
363
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Four hundred and sixty job applicants selected for an
interview for a graduate position with an international
financial organization in Australia were invited to parti-
cipate in the research. Five declined and a further five
sets of questionnaires were discarded due to incomple-
tion. Thus, the response rate was very high (97.83%), all
applicants completed pre- and post-interview question-
naires (N ¼ 450). Thirty-nine percent of participants
were female (N ¼ 174) and participant mean age was
23.1 standard deviations (SD ¼ 3.82). Applicants were
applying for a range of graduate positions, including
accounting, information technology, asset management,
data processing, finance, industrial relations, and human
resource management.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Perceived job and organizational characteristics
Perceived job and organizational characteristics were
assessed by 18 items from Harris and Fink (1987) and
seven additional items were from Turban et al. (1998).
Each item was answered on a five-point scale in relation
to the likelihood that the organization would exhibit
this characteristic, (1 ¼ ‘very unlikely’, 5 ¼ ‘extremely
likely’). Exploratory factor analysis indicated the items
assessed five underlying constructs. Items that had
cross-loadings, a loading o.5 or did not contribute to
the overall interpretation of the construct were
removed (N ¼ 8). The five constructs were: Challenging
Work (five items; sample item ‘challenging and inter-
esting work’), Co-workers (three items; sample item
‘warm friendly co-workers’), Promotion, Opportunities
(four items; sample item ‘opportunity for rapid
advancement), Reputation (three items; sample item
‘good reputation’), and Location (two items; sample
item ‘a location near family and friends’). These con-
structs are similar to those identified by Harris and Fink
(1987) and Turban et al. (1998).
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the pre- and
post-interview ratings indicated the five-factor model
provided a good fit to the data: chi-square (w2) ¼ 223,
df ¼ 94, p4.05, standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) ¼ .05, root mean square error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA) ¼ .06, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), ¼ .94,
comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ .94 (pre-selection);
w2 ¼ 207, df ¼ 94, p4.05, SRMR ¼ .04, RMSEA ¼ .05,
GFI ¼ 95, CFI ¼ .96 (post-selection; Carless & Imber,
2007).
2.2.2. Perceived interviewer characteristics
Thirty-one items from Harris and Fink (1987) and five
items from Schmitt and Coyle (1976) were adapted to
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007
364
assess applicant perceptions of recruiter characteristics
following their interview. A three-item scale was devel-
oped to measure the recruiter’s use of humor (sample
item ‘Used humor effectively during the interview’). The
response format was a five-point Likert scale
(1 ¼ ‘strongly disagree’, 5 ¼ ‘strongly agree’). Explora-
tory factor analyses indicated five underlying constructs:
Warmth (nine items; sample item ‘co-operative’),
Unfriendliness (seven items; sample item ‘Aggressive’),
Job Knowledge (six items; sample item ‘Spoke of job in
great detail’), General Competence (three items; sample
item ‘Capable of answering questions’), and Humor
(three items). Items that had cross-loadings, a loading
o.5 or did not contribute to the overall interpretation
of the construct were removed (N ¼ 11). CFA of the 28
items indicated the five-factor model provided a good fit
to the data: w2 ¼ 980.76, df ¼ 340, p4.05, SRMR ¼ .06,
RMSEA ¼ .07, GFI ¼ .86, CFI ¼ .92.
2.2.3. Applicant anxiety
The State Anxiety Inventory Form Y-1 (Spielberger,
Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1977) was used to
assess anxiety before and after the interview. The
inventory consisted of twenty items measured on a
four-point scale (1 ¼ ‘not at all,’ 2 ¼ ‘somewhat,’
3 ¼ ‘moderately so,’ 4 ¼ ‘very much so’). The inventory
requires participants to read statements such as ‘I feel
calm,’ ‘I feel frightened,’ and ‘I am worried’ and rate how
applicable each statement is to them at that moment.
Exploratory factor analysis was used to reduce the
items to scale scores for the purpose of SEM. Two
underlying factors were identified in both pre- and
post-interview rating, hence, two sub-scales were
formed (10 items each).
2.2.4. Attraction and acceptance intentions
Organizational attraction and intentions to accept a job
were measured on two five-item scales before and after
the interview (Highhouse, Lievens, & Sinar, 2003).
Exploratory factor analysis suggested the two measures
form either one or two constructs. Despite the high
overlap between the constructs (pre-interview r ¼.75,
post-interview r ¼.79), we chose to retain the distinc-
tiveness for the purposes of SEM. Highhouse et al.
(2003) have reported similar strong correlations, how-
ever, confirmatory factor analysis show that there are
highly related, but distinct constructs. Thus, in this
study the two measures were treated as indicators of
the construct, attraction-intention.
2.3. Procedure
Applicants who had been invited for an interview for a job
within the graduate recruitment program of the organiza-
tion were asked via telephone if they would like to
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007
Sally A. Carless and Amantha Imber
complete two questionnaires for research purposes.
Applicants were informed that the research was con-
cerned with examining job applicants’ reactions to selection
procedures and that their decision to participate in the
research would not impinge on their employment chances
at the organization. Those agreeing to participate were
asked to arrive 15 min before their scheduled interview.
Upon arrival for their interview, participants were
given Questionnaires 1 (pre-interview) and 2 (post-
interview). Several procedures were undertaken to
ensure that applicants completed the questionnaires
in the prescribed order. First, applicants were provided
with a cover letter, which explained the purpose of the
study and specified that they must complete Ques-
tionnaire 1 before their interview and Questionnaire 2
after their interview. Second, each questionnaire was
clearly labelled in large, bold type face ‘Questionnaire 1’
and ‘Questionnaire 2.’ Third, instructions about when
to complete each questionnaire were repeated at the
beginning of each questionnaire. For example, Ques-
tionnaire 1 instructed applicants to complete the ques-
tionnaire before the interview, and stated that the
questionnaire must not be completed after the inter-
view. Finally, at the end of Questionnaire 1, a red page
instructed applicants to not progress any further until
after the job interview was complete.
After completing Questionnaire 1, applicants were
interviewed by one of eight recruiters from an external
recruitment organization, in other words, initial recruit-
ment was outsourced by the organization. Six of the
recruiters were female and two were male. Interviews
lasted for approximately 40–45 min.
The purpose of the employment interview was to
confirm academic results and Australian citizenship, and
to evaluate the following competencies: teamwork,
demonstrating initiative, customer focus, concern for
quality and standards, problem solving, results focus,
and leadership. The interview was a structured beha-
vioral interview that focused on the candidates’ com-
petencies. Following their interview, applicants
completed Questionnaire 2.
The selection process for positions at the organiza-
tion consisted of five stages. The first step in the
selection procedure was an application form, based
on information provided applicants were selected for
ability testing. The second step was ability testing. The
third step was an interview with an external recruiter
(the stage around which the research was based). The
fourth step was an assessment center; and finally,
applicants who had successfully passed all three stages
were interviewed by a representative of the organiza-
tion, after which, job offers were made.
2.3.1. Missing data
In order to maximize the number of cases the EM
procedure for replacing missing data was used. This
& 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Interviewer and Job and Organizational Characteristics
procedure involves estimating the mean, the covariance
matrix and the correlation of variables with missing
data using an iterative process (SPSSX Version 11). The
number of missing data for each variable was small
(range 1–5).
3. Results
The means, SDs, a coefficients and the correlations for
all variables are presented in Table 1.
AMOS 5.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) was used to
examine the fit of the hypothesized model. In order to
minimize the number of indicators in the tested model,
sub-scale scores were used in the analysis. We allowed
Time 1 measures to correlate with the equivalent Time
2 variables (e.g., Time 1 Challenging Work with Time 2
Challenging Work). The goodness-of-fit statistics indi-
cated the fit of the hypothesized model was good:
w2 ¼ 668, df ¼ 214, p4.05, SRMR ¼ .11, RMSEA ¼ .07,
GFI ¼ 87, TLI .91, CFI ¼ .92.
The standardized path coefficients for the hypothe-
sized model are shown in Figure 2. It can be seen that
most hypothesized relationships are significant; the path
from applicant anxiety to attraction-intention is not
significant (Hypothesis 5). Post-interview perceived job
and organizational characteristics had a significant, direct
effect on attraction-intentions (b ¼ .32; Hypothesis 1).
Consistent with signaling theory, perceived interviewer
characteristics had a direct effect on perceived job and
organizational characteristics (b ¼ .33), which in turn
had a significant effect on attraction-intentions. Hence,
consistent with our prediction, perceived interviewer
characteristics had a significant indirect effect on attrac-
tion-intentions (Hypothesis 2). Perceived interviewer
characteristics also had a significant direct effect on
attraction-intentions (b ¼ .16; Hypothesis 3) and re-
duced the level of anxiety experienced (b ¼
.46;
Hypothesis 4).
Overall, the model shows that initial attraction and
intentions have the greatest influence on post-interview
attraction-intentions (b ¼ .63). The standardized total
effects (STE) also showed that initial attraction and
intentions had the greatest influence on post-selection
attraction-intentions (STE ¼ .63), in order of magnitude
this is followed by perceived job and organizational
characteristics (STE ¼ .24 Time 1; STE ¼ .32, Time 2)
and perceived interviewer characteristics (STE ¼ .27);
anxiety had no effect (STE ¼
.01).
Two alternative models were tested. First, we
removed the pathway between interviewer character-
istics and post-interview attraction-intentions (Model
2). The fit of the model was as follows: w2 ¼ 682,
df ¼ 215, p4.05, SRMR ¼ .11, RMSEA ¼ .07, GFI ¼ 87,
TLI ¼ .91,CFI ¼ .92. The w2 difference test showed that
Model 2 was a significantly poorer fit to the data:
& 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
365
w2diff ¼ 14, dfdiff ¼ 1, po.001. These results show that
interviewer characteristics have a direct influence on
attraction-intentions (i.e., the direct effect hypothesis).
Second, we removed the pathway between interviewer
characteristics and job and organizational characteris-
tics (Model 3). The fit of the model was as follows:
w2 ¼ 738, df ¼ 215, p4.05, SRMR ¼ .13, RMSEA ¼ .07,
GFI ¼ 87, TLI ¼ .90,CFI ¼ .91. Again, the w2 difference
test showed that Model 3 was a significantly poorer fit
to the data: w2diff ¼ 70, dfdiff ¼ 1, po.001. The latter
finding shows that interviewer characteristics also have
an indirect effect on attraction-intentions via job and
organizational characteristics (i.e., the indirect effect
hypothesis).
4. Discussion
The aim of this research was to test a model of the
interrelationship between perceived job and organiza-
tional characteristics, interviewer characteristics, appli-
cant anxiety and job choice attraction and intentions.
Support was found for the hypothesized model. The
first hypothesis that perceived job and organizational
characteristics would have a positive effect on job
choice attraction and intentions was supported. The
hypotheses that interviewer characteristics have an
indirect effect (Hypothesis 2) and direct effect (Hypo-
thesis 3) on attraction and intentions were supported.
The fourth hypothesis that interviewer characteristics
would reduce the level of applicant anxiety was
also supported. The fifth hypothesis that applicant
anxiety would have a negative relationship with organi-
zation attraction and acceptance intentions was not
supported.
Practically, these findings suggest that applicants
interpret interviewer characteristics such as warmth,
knowledge about the job, competence and humor as
signals about the job and organization. In addition,
interviewer characteristics substantially reduce the
level of anxiety experienced by the applicant. An
unexpected, but important finding was that applicant
anxiety experienced during the selection process had
no impact on attraction to the organization and inten-
tions to accept a job offer. This suggests that applicants
who experience uneasiness during the selection pro-
cess do not consequently form negative attitudes
towards the organization. Perceptions of the inter-
viewer and job and organizational characteristics
directly affect organizational attraction and job
acceptance intentions. Consistent with past research
(Harris & Fink, 1987; Powell, 1991), the findings
suggest that perceptions of the job and organizational
characteristics have a greater impact on applicant
job choice intentions compared with the interviewer.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007
Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007
International Journal of Selection and Assessment

366
Table 1. Intercorrelations between the variables of study
Variable M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Time 1
Challenge 4.14 (.49) [.77]
Cowork 3.67 (.58) .48 [.83]
Promo 3.38 (.53) .47 .47 [.70]
Reput 4.13 (.61) .47 .42 .38 [.77]
Locat 3.92 (.72) .13 .18 .19 .27 [.67]
Anxiety1 2.28 (.57)
.07
.08
.10
.07 .00 [.90]
Anxiety2 1.63 (.44)
.03 .05 .08
.01 .04 .62 [.82]
Attract 4.31 (.59) .60 .34 .33 .47 .14
.06
.05 [.85]
Intent 4.42 (.58) .55 .34 .36 .39 .10
.09
.02 .75 [.81]
Time 2
Chall 4.03 (.56) .66 .44 .35 .42 .09
.10
.02 .52 .47 [.85]
Cowork 3.64 (.61) .44 .67 .37 .32 .19
.10 .05 .32 .32 .59 [.84]
Promo 3.37 (.52) .38 .42 .66 .32 .16
.12 .08 .31 .31 .49 .52 [.75]
Reput 3.99 (.63) .42 .32 .30 .68 .19
.09
.01 .46 .38 .62 .45 .42 [.81]
Locat 3.79 (.75) .16 .22 .16 .25 .58 .04 .06 .15 .11 .28 .30 .26 .38 [.70]
Warmth 3.76 (.76) .18 .21 .11 .19 .10
.13
.02 .20 .22 .38 .33 .22 .34 .16 [.94]
Unfriend 1.89 (.75)
.05
.06 .04
.07
.11 .07 .10
.08
.10
.24
.16
.06
.24
.15
.68 [.86]
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Know 2.27 (.79) .20 .21 .25 .16
.04
.12 .05 .15 .22 .31 .32 .36 .28 .10 .38
.14 [.85]
Compet 3.39 (.87) .28 .25 .20 .25 .04
.08 .07 .33 .33 .45 .38 .34 .42 .17 .52
.34 .51 [.83]
Humor 3.17(1.02) .09 .15 .14 .13 .03
.10 .06 .13 .17 .28 .26 .24 .26 .15 .69
.47 .42 .45 [.90]
Anxiety1 1.99 (.69)
.02
.05
.03
.03
.07 .50 .35
.07
.11
.17
.17
.13
.17
.13
.43 .34
.26
.17
.36 [.92]

Sally A. Carless and Amantha Imber

Anxiety2 1.56 (.58) .05 .03 .06 .03
.12 .31 .45 .03
.02
.13
.09
.05
.11
.10
.33 .35
.13
.11
.27 .73 [.89]
Attract 4.22 (.66) .53 .26 .27 .42 .08
.07
.07 .75 .64 .63 .38 .34 .55 .20 .37
.29 .22 .41 .23
.18
.13 [.86]
Intent 4.36 (.65) .49 .29 .30 .35 .09
.03 .03 .65 .74 .61 .39 .36 .48 .22 .36
.24 .26 .40 .24
.15
.06 .79 [.85]
Notes: N ¼ 450. Correlations4.10, po.05. Chall, Challenging work; Cowork, co-workers; Promo, promotion opportunities; Reput, reputation; Locat, location, Attract ¼ Attraction to the organization,
Intent ¼ Intentions to accept a job; Unfriend, unfriendliness; Know, job knowledge; Compet, general competence.
& 2007 The Authors
Interviewer and Job and Organizational Characteristics 367

anx 1 anx 2
.74 .83

Pre-anxiety

UN KN GC .47
WA HU
−.70 .44 .58 .74
.92 .91 anx 1
−.46
Interviewer Post-anxiety .80
anx 2

.33 .16 .01 ns

COW PO RE CW COW PO RE LO
CW LO
.66 .44 .64 .59 .73 .52
.60 .58
.74 .81 .85 JI
Pre job & org .73 .32
Post job & org Post attract-intent .89
AT

.76
.63

Pre attract-intent

.83
.91
JI AT

Figure 2. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized model. CW, Challenging Work; COW, Co-workers; PO, Promotion
Opportunities; RE, Reputation; LO, Location, Pre job & org, Pre-selection job and organizational characteristics; Post job & org, Post-selection
job and organizational characteristics; Pre attract-intent, Pre-selection attraction to the organization-intentions to accept a job; Post attract-
intent, Post-selection attraction to the organization-intentions to accept a job; WA, Warmth; UN, Unfriendliness; KN, Job Knowledge; GC,
General Competence; HU, Humor.

Theoretically these findings support the application of
signaling theory and ELM to applicant reactions.
In contrast to Turban et al. (1998), our findings
showed that interviewer characteristics had a direct
and indirect influence on job choice intentions. Turban
and his colleagues found the direct effects path was non
significant. Differences in interview type may explain
the different findings. In this study the interview was the
third stage in the selection procedure, whereas, in
Turban et al.’s study it is likely they were recruitment
interviews as they were conducted on campus and
were brief. The label ‘recruiter interviews’ used by the
authors and the assessment of the recruiter behavior of
‘informing and selling’ confirms this view.
Another possible reason for the difference is that
Turban et al. (1998) tested a slightly different model to
that of our study. They included organizational reputa-
tion as a predictor variable of interviewer character-
istics whereas in the current study reputation was
considered as part of job and organizational character-
istics. Finally, methodological issues may explain the
different findings. The two studies used slightly different
measures to assess perceived interviewer behavior.
Our study focused more on personal characteristics
(e.g., friendliness, humor), whereas, Turban and
coworkers focused more on task aspects of the inter-
view (e.g., interview structure, informing and selling
behaviors).
A positive finding of this study was that interviewer
qualities reduce the extent of negative emotions
experienced by the applicant. Theoretically, this pro-
vides tentative support for the application of emotional
contagion theory to the selection context. In this
study a range of interviewer characteristics were
assessed: Warmth, Unfriendliness, Job Knowledge,
General Competence, and Humor. The recruiter char-
acteristic of Warmth was assessed by items such as
empathetic, co-operative, thoughtful, and warm per-
sonality; these are descriptors of the agreeable person-
ality dimension. Our findings suggest that interviewers
high on Warmth or agreeableness are better at detect-
ing applicant anxiety and using strategies, such as humor
to reduce it. This is a significant finding; research has
shown that interviewers find it difficult to assess
applicant anxiety (Barrick, Patton, & Haugland, 2000;
Van Dam, 2003). There is a need for further research
on individual differences in interviewers’ interpersonal
behavior toward applicants (Graves & Karren, 1999), in
particular, interviewer personality using the five-factor
model.

& 2007 The Authors International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007
368
This study makes an important contribution to the
existing applicant reactions literature for several rea-
sons. First, we were able to show that characteristics
of the interviewer significantly reduced the level of
applicant anxiety experienced. We are unaware of the
issue of applicant anxiety being empirically examined in
the literature and believe this represents a contribution
in and of itself. Second, we used a theoretical frame-
work to understand the interplay between job and
organizational characteristics and selection procedures.
Third, we were able to show that after controlling for
initial attitudes and intentions, reactions to selection
procedures impacted on job choice attitudes and
intentions. Fourth, the focus of study was an actual
selection interview; in contrast, previous research has
mostly examined reactions to campus interviews. Fifth,
a comprehensive, multidimensional measure of the
variables of interest was used to assess applicant
perceptions.
Finally, by using SEM we were able to test a
model that explained the interconnectedness between
selection procedures, job and organizational character-
istics, applicant anxiety and job choice attitudes and
intentions. Multiple regression analyses have almost
exclusively been used by previous researchers. These
types of analyses provide a very simplistic view of the
influence of interviewer characteristics and job and
organizational characteristics on applicant attitudes
and intentions. On the other hand, SEM is better able
to inform us how the system of variables operates
as a whole. It is able to address the issue of direct
and indirect influence of variables, for example, inter-
viewer characteristics and job and organizational char-
acteristics. The disadvantage of SEM is that it typically
requires a large sample size (Harris & Schaubroeck,
1990).
4.1. Limitations and future research
The sample of graduate applicants to one organization
limits the generalizability of these findings. The organi-
zation is international, with a high profile and a positive
reputation in the media. On the other hand, there are
several advantages associated with conducting a single
organization study (Barber, 1998). Survey timing was
easy to manage because it was based on the organiza-
tion’s recruitment and selection schedule. Second,
support of the project by the organization enhanced
participation rate. Extraneous, non-recruitment factors
that could influence attraction are controlled for. A
disadvantage of a single organization design is that there
may have been little variation in the variables of interest
and thus, the effect of these may have been under-
estimated. This raises a difficult methodological issue
for researchers. Large organizations are more likely
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007
Sally A. Carless and Amantha Imber
than small organizations to have a human resource
department, use a range of selection procedures and
employ large numbers of graduates (Di Milia & Smith,
1997; Harding & Wooden, 1997). Small organizations
are more likely to use relatively inexperienced inter-
viewers and a limited range of selection techniques,
thus it is possible there would be more variation in the
data (Bartram, Lindley, Marshall, & Foster, 1995). How-
ever, access to an adequate sample size of small
organizations is difficult to negotiate, time consuming
to collect and therefore expensive.
In order to maximize our response rate at Time 2,
we followed the example of those who have collected
data immediately before and after the interview (e.g.,
Harris & Fink, 1987; Liden, Martin, & Parsons, 1993;
Ralston & Brady, 1994; Turban & Dougherty, 1992;
Turban et al., 1998). However, the relatively short
time between pre- and post-interview data collection
raises concerns about common method variance. On
the other hand, the findings are consistent with
research that has had a longer time gap between pre-
and post-interview data collection (Powell, 1991).
Although several procedures were adopted to ensure
that the questionnaires were completed in the prescribed
sequence it is possible that a few applicants did not
follow instructions. Unfortunately, we were unable to
directly monitor questionnaire completion.
Finally, a limitation of this study was that the inter-
viewer was a person external to the organization.
Although, using external interviewers is not common
practice, evidence indicates that there is a trend to
outsource recruitment and selection activities (Carless,
2007; Kwiatkowski, 2003; Lepak & Snell, 1998). Indirect
evidence indicates that whether the recruiter is internal
or external to the organization has no impact on
applicant attitudes. In a study of applicant reactions to
job advertisements, Carless and Wintle (2007) found
that whether the contact person was internal (e.g.,
human resource personnel) or external (e.g., recruit-
ment consultant) had no effect on attractiveness of the
organization. Thus, it is unclear the extent these
findings generalize to other situations.
It is not unusual for organizations to conduct at
least two selection interviews (Carless, 2007; Di Milia
et al., 1994; Ryan et al., 1999). According to ELM theory
as applicants move through the selection process and
gain greater knowledge about the job and organization,
they are more likely to utilize central processing
compared to peripheral processing and thus rely on
actual job and organizational characteristics rather than
make inferences based on interviewer characteristics.
Thus, there is a need for research that examines the
impact of interviewer characteristics and job and orga-
nizational characteristics later in the selection process.
In addition it would be interesting to examine the
impact of using peers as interviewers. Recent research
& 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Interviewer and Job and Organizational Characteristics
indicates that in Australia approximately 33% of med-
ium to large organizations use peers as interviewers
and in the United States, 56% used peers (Ryan et al.,
1999). Wanous and Colella (1989) proposed that the
interview is the most commonly used medium for
delivering realistic job preview information to appli-
cants. It is feasible that when peers are used as
interviewers they are perceived as credible sources of
information (Coleman & Irving, 1997; Fisher, Ilgen,
& Hoyer, 1979) and thus may have a different impact
on applicants compared to full time interviewers
(Breaugh & Starke, 2000).
In conclusion, our findings showed that interview
characteristics have a direct and indirect influence via
job and organizational characteristics on job choice
intentions. In addition these findings confirm previous
research that job and organizational attributes have an
important influence on applicant job choice intentions.
Qualities of the interviewer reduce applicant anxiety
experienced during the selection process. Theoreti-
cally, the findings offer general support for the applica-
tion of ELM and signaling theory to selection.
Practically, these findings emphasize the importance of
selecting and training interviewers. For researchers,
our findings suggest further study of interviews con-
ducted later in the selection process and by peers.
Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge Felicity Allen’s generous
editorial help.
References
Arbuckle, J.L. and Wothke, W. (1999) Amos 4.0 user’s guide.
Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Ayres, J. and Crosby, S. (1995) Two Studies Concerning the
Predictive Validity of the Personal Report of Communica-
tion Apprehension in Employment Interviews. Communica-
tion Research Reports, 12, 145–151.
Barber, A.E. (1998) Recruiting Employees: Individual and organi-
zational perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Barber, A.E., Hollenbeck, J.R., Tower, S.L. and Phillips, J.M.
(1994) The Effects of Interview Focus on Recruitment
Effectiveness: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 79, 886–896.
Barrick, M.R., Patton, G.K. and Haughland, S.N. (2000)
Accuracy of Interviewer Judgements of Job Applicant
Personality. Personnel Psychology, 53, 925–948.
Bartram, D., Lindley, P.A., Marshall, L. and Foster, J. (1995) The
Recruitment and Selection of Young People by Small
Businesses. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-
chology, 68, 339–358.
& 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
369
Boswell, W.R., Roehling, M.V., LePine, M.A. and Moynihan,
L.M. (2003) Individual Job-Choice Decisions and the Impact
of Job Attributes and Recruitment Practices: A longitudinal
field study. Human Resource Management, 42, 23–37.
Boverie, P., Hoffman, J.F., Klein, D.C., McClelland, M. and
Oldknow, M. (1994) Humor in Human Resource Develop-
ment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5, 75–91.
Breaugh, J.A. and Starke, M. (2000) Research on Employee
Recruitment: So many studies, so many remaining ques-
tions. Journal of Management, 26, 405–434.
Carless, S.A. (2007). Graduate Recruitment and Selection
in Australia. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
15, 2, 153–166.
Carless, S.A. (2003) A Longitudinal Study of Applicant Reac-
tions to Selection Procedures and Job and Organisational
Characteristics. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
ment, 11, 345–351.
Carless, S.A. and Imber, A. (2007) Job and Organizational
Characteristics: A construct evaluation of applicant
perceptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
67, 328–341.
Carless, S.A. and Wintle, J. (2007) Applicant Attraction: The
role of recruiter function work–life balance policies and
career salience. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
ment, 15, 394–404.
Coleman, D.F. and Irving, P.G. (1997) The Influence of Source
Credibility Attributions on Expectancy Theory Predictions
of Job Choice. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 29,
122–131.
Connerley, M.L. and Rynes, S.A. (1997) The Influence of
Recruiter Characteristics and Organizational Recruitment
Support on Perceived Recruiter Effectiveness: Views
from applicants and recruiters. Human Relations, 50,
1563–1586.
Cook, K.W., Vance, C.A. and Spector, P.E. (2000) The
Relation of Candidate Personality with Selection Inter-
view Outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30,
867–885.
Cooper, W.H. and Richardson, A.J. (1986) Unfair Compar-
isons. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 2, 179–184.
Di Milia, L. and Smith, P. (1997) Australian Management
Selection Practices: Why does the interview remain pop-
ular? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 35, 3, 90–103.
Di Milia, L., Smith, P.A. and Brown, D.F. (1994) Management
Selection in Australia: A comparison with British and
French findings. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
ment, 2, 80–90.
Eder, R.W. (1999) Contextual Effects. In: Eder, R.W. and
Harris, M.M. (eds), The Employment Interview Handbook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 197–216.
Fisher, C.D., Ilgen, D.R. and Hoyer, W.D. (1979) Source
Credibility, Information Favorability, and Job Offer Accep-
tance. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 94–103.
Gelkopf, M. and Kreitler, S. (1996) Is Humor only Fun, an
Alternative Cure or Magic? The Cognitive Therapeutic
Potential of Humor. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An
International Quarterly, 10, 235–254.
Gilmore, D.C. (1989) Applicant Perceptions of Simulated
Behavior Description Interviews. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 3, 3, 279–288.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007
370
Goltz, S.M. and Giannantonio, C.M. (1995) Recruiter Friendli-
ness and Attraction to the Job: The mediating role of
inferences about the organization. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 46, 109–118.
Graves, L.M. and Karren, R.J. (1999) Are Some Interviewers
Better than Others? In Eder, R.W. and Harris, M.M. (eds),
The Employment Interview Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, pp. 243–258.
Harding, D. and Wooden, M. (1997) Recruitment and Selec-
tion in Australia: Results from a national survey of employ-
ers. In: Harding, D. and Wooden, M. (eds), Trends in Staff
Selection and Recruitment. Canberra: Department of
Employment, Education, Training and Youth.
Harris, M. and Fink, L.S. (1987) A Field Study of Applicant
Reactions to Employment Opportunities: Does the
recruiter make a difference. Personnel Psychology, 40,
765–784.
Harris, M. and Schaubroeck, J. (1990) Confirmatory Modeling
in Organizational Behavior: Human resource management
issues and applications. Journal of Management, 16,
337–360.
Hartfield, E., Cacioppo, J. and Rapson, R.L. (1992) Emotional
Contagion. In: Emotion and Social Behavior, Vol. 14. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage, pp. 151–177.
Hausknecht, J.P., Day, D.V. and Thomas, S.C. (2004) Applicant
Reactions to Selection Procedures: An updated model and
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639–683.
Highhouse, S., Lievens, F. and Sinar, E.F. (2003) Measuring
Attraction to Organizations. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 63, 6, 986–1001.
Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A. and Cable, D.M. (2000) The Employ-
ment Interview: A review of recent research and recom-
mendations for future research. Human Resource
Management Review, 10, 383–406.
Kwiatkowski, R. (2003) Trends in Organisations and Selection:
An introduction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18,
382–394.
Larsen, D.A. and Phillips, J.I. (2002) Effect of Recruiter on
Attraction to the Firm: Implications of the elaboration like-
lihood model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 347–364.
Lepak, D.P. and Snell, S.A. (1998) Virtual HR: Strategic human
resource management in the 21st century. Human Resource
Management Review, 8, 215–234.
Liden, R.C., Martin, C.L. and Parsons, C.K. (1993) Interviewer
and Applicant Behaviors in Employment Interviews. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 36, 2, 372–386.
Liden, R.C. and Parsons, C.K. (1986) A Field Study of
Applicant Interview Perceptions Alternative Opportunities,
and Demographic Characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 39,
109–123.
Macan, T.H. and Dipboye, R.L. (1990) The Relationship of
Interviewers’ Preinterview Impressions to Selection and
Recruitment Outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 43, 4, 745–768.
Maurer, S.D., Howe, V. and Lee, T.W. (1992) Organizational
Recruiting as Marketing Management: An interdisciplinary
study of engineering graduates. Personnel Psychology, 45,
807–833.
McCarthy, J. and Goffin, R. (2004) Measuring Job Interview
Anxiety: Beyond weak knees and sweaty palms. Personnel
Psychology, 57, 607–637.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007
Sally A. Carless and Amantha Imber
Morreall, J. (1991) Humor and Work. Humor, 4, 359–373.
Newman, M.G. and Stone, A.A. (1996) Does Humor Moder-
ate the Effects of Experimentally-Induced Stress? Annals of
Behavioral Medicine, 18, 101–109.
O’Leary, B.S., Lindholm, M.L., Whitford, R.A. and Freeman,
S.E. (2002) Selecting the Best and Brightest: Leveraging
human capital. Human Resource Management, 41,
325–340.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) Communication and
Persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Posthuma, R.A., Morgeson, F.P. and Campion, M.A. (2002)
Beyond Employment Interview Validity: A comprehensive
narrative review of recent research and trends over time.
Personnel Psychology, 55, 1, 1–52.
Powell, G.N. (1984) Effects of Job Attributes and Recruiting
Practices on Applicant Decisions: A comparison. Personnel
Psychology, 37, 721–732.
Powell, G.N. (1991) Applicant Reactions to the Initial Employ-
ment Interview: Exploring theoretical and methodological
issues. Personnel Psychology, 44, 67–83.
Ralston, S.M. and Brady, R. (1994) The Relative Influence of
Interview Communication Satisfaction on Applicants’
Recruitment Interview Decisions. The Journal of Bussiness
Communication, 31, 1, 61–77.
Ryan, A.M., McFarland, L.A., Baron, H. and Page, R. (1999) An
International Look at Selection Practices: Nation and
culture as explanations for variability in practice. Personnel
Psychology, 52, 359–391.
Ryan, A.M. and Ployhart, R.E. (2000) Applicants’ Perceptions
of Selection Procedures and Decisions: A critical review
and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26,
565–606.
Rynes, S.L. (1991) Recruitment, Job-Choice, and Post-Hire
Consequences: A call for new research directions.
In: Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (eds), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd edn). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 399–444.
Rynes, S.L. and Boudreau, J.W. (1986) College Recruiting in
Large Organizations: Practice, evaluation, and research
implications. Personnel Psychology, 39, 729–757.
Rynes, S.L., Bretz, R.D. and Gerhart, B. (1991) The Impor-
tance of Recruitment in Job Choice: A different way of
looking. Personnel Psychology, 44, 487–521.
Rynes, S.L. and Miller, H.E. (1983) Recruiter and Job Influences
on Candidates for Employment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
68, 147–154.
Schmit, M.J. and Ryan, A.M. (1992) Test-Taking Dispositions:
A missing link? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 629–637.
Schmit, M.J. and Ryan, A.M. (1997) Applicant Withdrawal: The
role of test-taking attitudes and racial differences. Personnel
Psychology, 50, 855–876.
Schmitt, N. and Coyle, B.W. (1976) Applicant Decisions in the
Employment Interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 2,
184–192.
Spence, M. (1973) Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 87, 355–374.
Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., Lushene, R.E., Vagg, P.R. and
Jacobs, G.A. (1977) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
& 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Interviewer and Job and Organizational Characteristics
Stevens, C.K. (1998) Antecedents of Interview Interactions,
Interviewers’ Ratings, and Applicants’ Reactions. Personnel
Psychology, 51, 55–85.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001) Using Multivariate
Statistics (4th edn). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Taylor, M.S. and Bergmann, T.J. (1987) Organizational Recruit-
ment Activities and Applicants’ Reactions at Different
Stages of the Recruitment Process. Personnel Psychology,
40, 261–285.
Turban, D.B. and Dougherty, T.W. (1992) Influences of Cam-
pus Recruiting on Applicant Attraction to Firms. Academy of
Management Journal, 35, 4, 739–765.
Turban, D.B., Forret, M.L. and Hendrickson, C.L. (1998)
Applicant Attraction to Firms: Influences of organization
& 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
371
reputation, job and organizational attributes, and re-
cruiter behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52,
24–44.
Van Dam, K. (2003) Trait Perception in the Employment
Interview: A five-factor model perspective. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 43–53.
Vroom, V.H. (1964) Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wang, C. and Ellingson, J.E. (2004). Building Relationships
Through Trust: A new perspective on the psychological
process of recruitment, 19th Annual Conference of the Society
of Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Chicago.
Wanous, J.P. and Colella, A. (1989) Organizational Entry
Research: Current status and future directions. Research
in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 7, 59–120.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007