Measuring Attraction to Organizations

By Scott Highhouse, Filip Lievens, Evan F. Sinar. 2003

839 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Organizational attractionmeasures are commonly used as surrogate assessments of organizational pursuit. Despite the range in content often encompassed by such instruments, no research has systematically examined the assumptions underlying their use. The authors address this issue by empirically distinguishing items assessing attractiveness, prestige, and behavioral intentions and by modeling their effects on organization pursuit. Undergraduates (N= 305) were randomly assigned to recruitment literature from one of five wellknown companies and were asked to respond to a series of items commonly used in past research. Analyses of the itemresponses suggested that three components of organizational attraction can be reliably distinguished and that their relation to organization-pursuit behavior corresponds to Fishbein and Ajzen’s theory of reasoned action.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Gender Studies, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/da7ff952d9132fbde02cf1bde24cf0ade7c1a67c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. Greet van Hoye
2. Saartje Cromheecke
3. Turker Bas
4. Filip Lievens
5. Tingting Jiang
6. P. Iles
7. N. Thompson
8. Anton F. Schlechter

In Gender Studies

1. Greet van Hoye
2. Saartje Cromheecke
3. Turker Bas
4. Filip Lievens
5. Tingting Jiang
6. P. Iles
7. M. Bussin
8. N. Thompson

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. Greet van Hoye
2. Filip Lievens
3. Saartje Cromheecke
4. Turker Bas
5. Michael S. Cole
6. Jeremy B. Bernerth
7. Tingting Jiang
8. P. Iles

Citations in the corpus

• Effects of corporate social responsibility on customer satisfaction and organizational attractiveness: A signaling perspective (2019, positive): “As shown in Figure 2, we find that Hypothesis 4a ( β = .65, p .01), Hypothesis 4b ( β = .14, p .10), Hypothesis 5a ( β = .38, p .01), and Hypothesis 5b ( β = .32, p .01) are all significant consistent with the previous literature (Highhouse et al., 2003).”
• Initial Attraction to Organizations: The influence of trait inferences (2009, neutral): “Highhouse et al. (2003) reported that a three-factor model (attraction, intentions, prestige) provided the best fit to the data for these nine items.”
• The Instrumental and Symbolic Dimensions of Organisations' Image as an Employer: A Large‐Scale Field Study on Employer Branding in Turkey (2013, methodology): “An organisation’s perceived attractiveness as an employer was measured with three items from Highhouse, Lievens, and Sinar (2003).”
• Organizational attractiveness and prospective applicants' intentions to apply (2011, background): “), likely as a result of socio-economic trends including growth of labor forces and increasingly competitive markets ( Highhouse et al. , 2003”
• Is This How I Will Be Treated? Reducing Uncertainty through Recruitment Interactions (2013, background): “We likewise assessed participants’ (a) positive relational certainty before any interaction occurred (three items [Truxillo & Bauer, 1999]; .76) and (b) organizational attraction to the potential employer before any interaction had transpired (five items [Highhouse et al., 2003]; .85).”
• Attractiveness of non-financial rewards for prospective knowledge workers: An experimental investigation (2015, methodology): “The questionnaire that accompanied the job advertisements (stimuli) and that was used to assess perceived job attraction was taken from Highhouse et al. (2003) Attraction Questionnaire.”
• The Instrumental-Symbolic Framework: Organisational Image and Attractiveness of Potential Applicants and their Companions at a Job Fair (2011, neutral): “by a typical item such as “This organization is attractive to me as a place for employment” (Highhouse et al., 2003).”