C H A P T E R

284

16 Employer Brand Equity and Recruitment Research

Christopher J. Collins and Adam M. Kanar

Organizations are i nding it increasingly dii -cult to source new employees to i ll critical roles necessary to meet the new sales growth projec-tions, a human resources problem so severe that it has often been dubbed the “war for talent” by the media. Nowhere is this shortage felt more than in the battle for knowledge workers, those employ-ees with the education and computer skills that drive organizational innovation and performance in the new economy (Collins & Stevens, 2002). With national economies returning to growth, increased employment opportunities have also made it dii cult for these same i rms to retain their current employees, creating more job open-ings to be i lled by individuals from outside the company. However, the improving economy may paint only part of the picture in the war for talent. Changes in demographics, including retirement of baby boomers and a smaller number of potential employees in the succeeding generations, will also

Abstract

Employer brands are one tool that scholars and the popular press have increasingly pointed to as a means for companies to differentiate themselves and gain a competitive advantage in attracting talent. This chapter explores the emerging literature on employer brands and employer brand equity and proposes future research directions. It first reviews key concepts from consumer brand equity to provide theoretical background from marketing. Second, it connects these concepts with the extant literatures on decision making and job search and choice to identify how employer brands may affect individuals who may be either actively or passively searching for new jobs. Third, based on research and theories from the literatures on marketing and recruitment, it identifies how firms can effectively develop strong employer brands that help to attract talent to the organization. Finally, this chapter proposes future research drawing from a constructive choice-goals framework that may continue to build our knowledge in the area of employer brands and applicant attraction.

Key Words: employer brand equity, employer brands, job search, marketing recruitment

make it more dii cult for companies to i nd and attract new workers to i ll job vacancies (Collins & Stevens, 2002).

Although macroeconomic factors are part of the issue, changing sociocultural factors may also contribute to a need for companies to search for more external talent. For example, turnover has increased because of changes in individuals’ atti-tudes toward work and commitment to a single company. As a reaction to layof s and the changing nature of stai ng (e.g., increased use of temporary and contractual labor), people have become more concerned with managing their own careers and growth opportunities and less so about the security of lifetime employment with a single i rm (Cappelli, 1999). Individuals increasingly look to opportuni-ties both within and outside their current employers to advance their skills and improve their individual marketability. h us, i rms are seeking competi-tive advantages in their battle both to attract new

285Collins, Kanar

Consumer Brand Equity Product brand equity has been dei ned in the

marketing literature as the dif erence in choice between a focal brand and either unbranded or weakly branded products with equal levels of prod-uct features (Aaker, 1991). In ef ect, brand equity is the value attributed to a product over competi-tive products with similar features based only on the name and perceptions of that product. h ere is strong evidence that product brand equity creates value for organizations. For example, strong brand equity has been found to increase the probability of brand choice and willingness to pay premium prices (Keller, 1993). h us, Aaker (1991, 1996)  dei ned brand equity as the positive or negative ef ects that the brand has on consumers’ preferences and pur-chasing decisions of a product or service marketed under this brand. For the benei ts of a brand to materialize, it is critical to understand the interplay of specii c components of brands and the choice context. In the next section, we discuss the charac-teristics of product brands and how those character-istics interact with the choice context ultimately to create product brand equity.

Dimensions of Consumer Brand Equity h e source of consumer brand equity is based

on customer perceptions, not on objective factors (e.g., Aaker, 1996; Lassar, Mittal, & Sharma, 1995). Drawing on research on associative memory, brand equity researchers have argued that consumer deci-sions are driven by brand image that resides in the memory of individual consumers (Keller, 1993; Wyer & Srull, 1989). Brand equity researchers pos-tulate that information is stored in memory in the form of nodes—specii c bits of information—that are connected via links that vary in strength. When a node is recalled or activated, it triggers activa-tion of other nodes according to the strength of the link and this related information becomes available for use (Anderson, 1983; Wyer & Srull, 1989). Information and memory of a product brand have two key dimensions, the node itself or awareness of the brand and its links related to information, also known as the associated feelings and knowl-edge related to the brand (Keller, 1993). h e term brand association is used to capture a broad array of brand-related information (e.g., Keller, 2003). h e brand associations connected to the node gen-erally take the form of general evaluations referred to as surface associations, or more detailed beliefs about specii c product attributes referred to as com-plex brand associations. A consumer draws on his

employees and retain those individuals whom they already employ. Indeed, these factors work together to make recruitment one of, if not the most impor-tant HR practice to help organizations drive their strategy, grow, and outperform their rivals (Taylor & Collins, 2000).

Employer brands are one tool that scholars and the popular press have increasingly pointed to as a means for companies to dif erentiate themselves and gain a competitive advantage in attracting tal-ent (Cable & Turban, 2001; Collins & Stevens, 2002; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). h e emerging academic research on employer brands or employer brand equity draws heavily on the consumer brand equity literature from marketing. Consumer brand equity, from a product marketing perspective, has been dei ned as the incremental value added to a product by its brand name (Farquhar, 1989). For example, the brand equity of Rolex is the addi-tional value attributed to the watch in the mind of a consumer due solely to the name and symbol of the product. From a behavioral viewpoint, brand equity is important in making points of dif eren-tiation in the minds of consumers, leading them to select a strongly branded product over weakly or unbranded competitors (Aaker, 1991). Similarly, in this chapter, we dei ne employer brand equity as the ef ects on decision making of potential and existing employees uniquely due to the employer brand of the company. In other words, the employer brand equity of a i rm is the outcomes of individuals’ employment decision opportunities (e.g., decisions to apply, accept job of ers, remain with the com-pany) that are attributable to the employer brand of the organization (Cable & Turban, 2001; Collins & Stevens, 2002).

In this chapter, we will more fully explore the emerging literature on employer brands and employer brand equity. First, we will briel y review the key concepts from consumer brand equity to provide some theoretical background from market-ing. Second, we will draw from the extant literatures on decision making and job search and choice to identify how employer brands may af ect individu-als who may be either actively or passively searching for new jobs. h ird, based on research and theories from the literatures on marketing and recruitment, we will identify how i rms can ef ectively develop strong employer brands that help attract talent to the organization. Finally, we will discuss areas of future research that will help to continue to build knowledge in the area of employer brands and applicant attraction.

286 Employer Brand Equity and Recruitment Research

Impact of Brand Equity Dimensions on Consumer Decision Making

h e components of product brands inl uence consumers’ behaviors and choices either alone or together. In some circumstances, awareness has positive direct ef ects on consumer decision making because individuals are more likely to see familiar brands in a more positive light and assume positive attributes for familiar relative to unfamiliar brands. Brand familiarity also impacts consumer decision making indirectly by creating the memory node on which brand information can be stored.

At a basic level, brand associations impact con-sumers’ purchase intentions by implying the abil-ity of the brand or product to i t a consumer’s needs (Keller, 1993; Kirmani & Zeithaml, 1993). Consumers may attach value to the attributes of a brand that carry meaning, suggesting that the brand will satisfy some functional, experiential, or symbolic needs (Keller, 1993). In general, con-sumers are more likely to choose products that they perceive i t their needs over products of equal reputation or familiarity that do not (Kirmani & Zeithaml, 1993). Brand associations addressing consumers’ needs will create i t perceptions and inl uence product choice, and for this reason prod-uct brand associations are evaluated in terms of their favorability (i.e., positive or negative) and strength (i.e., accessibility in memory, consumer coni dence, and certainty in brand associations; Petty, Biñol, & Demaree, 1997; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Because consumers evaluate brands with respect to compet-ing brands, a brand’s associations are also evaluated in terms of uniqueness, which is associated with brand positioning. h is is important because it sug-gests that brands need to be considered relative to their competition—and requires a more complex model of decision making.

Although both types of brand associations—sur-face and complex—imply a brand’s ability to meet a consumer’s needs, distinguishing between sur-face and complex brand associations is important because they play dif erent roles in consumer judg-ment and decision making. Consumers may use complex associations to make in-depth comparisons between alternatives, they may compare brands at a general level with surface comparisons, or they may rely on a specii c complex association to make sim-ple comparisons through a simple decision heuristic. In surface comparisons, consumers often attempt to distinguish between brands or products based on the feelings of attraction that they have developed toward each of the brands in question (Farquhar,

or her awareness and associations with a brand to make product choice decisions or when interpret-ing marketing activities (Aaker, 1991). In the fol-lowing paragraphs, we dei ne each of these concepts in greater detail and then describe their links to con-sumer decision making.

Brand awareness. Brand awareness—the strength of a consumer’s memory record for the brand (Keller, 1993)—is the fundamental and necessary component of a brand. Awareness can be seen as the cognitive evaluation of whether or not the consumer is aware of the company in question (Keller, 1993). Greater awareness increases consumers’ ability to identify the brand and thus increases the likelihood that the brand will be included in the consideration set from which the i nal choice will be made (Aaker, 1996; Rossiter & Percy, 1987). Brand awareness most com-monly has been studied from the perspective of either familiarity (i.e., the number of brand associations; Aaker, 1996)  or accessibility (i.e., strength of the node, or ease with which the name comes to mind). From a marketing perspective, familiarity relates to the likelihood and ease with which consumers can evoke a brand name under dif erent conditions and is the basic building block on which other beliefs about the brand are stored (Rossiter & Percy, 1987).

Surface brand associations . Surface brand cognitions are the knowledge or beliefs about a brand that require little cognitive processing and are easily retrieved from memory (Keller, 1993). Surface associations tend to be subjective in nature (Keller, 1993)  and include both attitudes and general feelings or dispositions toward the brand (Aaker, 1991). Attitudes are consumers’ subjec-tive evaluations of the attractiveness of a brand and may be considered to rel ect their generalized feelings toward the brand (Wilke, 1986). h ese associations can serve as simple cues that consum-ers can access to make quick or low-ef ort com-parisons between products when they hold little specii c knowledge about the products (Heilman, Bowman, & Wright, 2000).

Complex brand associations . Complex brand associations are codii ed knowledge or beliefs regard-ing a brand that include details about the product and require greater cognitive ef ort to process or retrieve (Keller, 1993). Complex brand associations include perceptions about product or company attributes and about the i t of the product to their needs (Aaker, 1991). Like surface associations, these are rooted in perceptions, although consumers tend to believe that their associations regarding product features are objective in nature (Keller, 1993).

287Collins, Kanar

associations during exposure to a company’s recruit-ment activities (Rynes et al., 1991).

Surface Employer Brand Associations Surface brand associations refer to attitudes and

overall evaluations of an employer brand. Collins and Stevens (2002) conceptualized these as orga-nizational attraction. Organizational attraction is one of the most heavily studied outcomes in the applicant attraction literature, but has been consid-ered in dif erent ways—as attraction toward a job, organization, or an employer in general (Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005). Surface associations in the present context refer to a company’s general attractiveness as an employer and feelings of what it is like to work for the organization (Collins & Stevens, 2002; Highhouse et al., 1999). By conceptualizing employer brand associations as either surface or complex, surface associations may have a unique role in employer brand equity. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis by Chapman and colleagues (2005) provides evidence that organizational attrac-tion and job and organizational characteristics may have dif erent nomological networks.

Complex Employer Brand Associations Potential applicants also form specii c associa-

tions about organizations as employers. Complex brand associations are any perceived characteristic regarding specii c elements of what it is like to work at a particular organization and are used to make employer decisions. h ese associations are impor-tant because they satisfy a person’s needs related to the experience of work, ranging from the job itself to the overall work environment at the company (Collins & Stevens, 2002). h ese needs may be dif-ferent than those satisi ed by a product, but broadly may still serve functional, symbolic, and experien-tial values similar to consumer brands (Highhouse, Livens, & Sinar, 2003).

Considerable research has focused on identify-ing potential applicants’ preferred job and organi-zational characteristics (Chapman et al., 2005), for example, the work environment or opportunities for advancement (Cable & Graham, 2000). Highhouse and colleagues (1999) adapted an inductive method from the marketing to elicit the instrumental attri-butes that job seekers use to dif erentiate potential employers through a forced-comparison procedure adapted from the consumer marketing literature. Potential applicants’ perceptions of job and organi-zational attributes have been assumed to be impor-tant as far as they were instrumental—the attributes

1989). Individuals rely on surface comparisons for low-involvement decisions (Keller, 2003) or when their surface associations are diagnostic (Lynch, Mamorstein, & Weigold, 1988). Consumers rely on complex associations when making deliberate or in-depth comparisons between brands (Heilman et al., 2000) but also when making attribute-based decisions if a particular association is diagnostic. Often when evaluating and making comparisons between products within a category, consumers rely on their perceptions of the presence or absence of specii c product features (Aaker, 1991). h us, the outcome of choice between products may depend on whether consumers relied on surface or complex associations and the extent to which they believe that the brand perceptions in their memory align with personal needs (Keller, 1993).

Employer Brand Equity and Decision Making

Employer brands are contained in the belief systems of potential and current employees of an organization. Employer branding research is in its infancy, yet scholars have consistently found evi-dence that potential applicants’ perceptions of an employer are strongly associated with the applicants’ intentions and behaviors toward the organization (Collins & Han, 2004; Turban & Cable, 2003). In this section we briel y review i rst the conceptual-ization of employer brands and then evidence that employer brands can impact applicants’ behaviors and employer choice decisions.

Dimensions of Employer Brand Equity Awareness

Employer brands are rooted in a potential recruit’s awareness of the employer (Cable & Turban, 2001). A job searcher must be aware of a potential employer before he or she can consider applying for employment at the i rm. Awareness is fundamental to employer brands because it is the memory node in which applicants can store more specii c associa-tions. Awareness has usually been conceptualized as either a simple heuristic or familiarity—number of associations. Awareness here is conceptually similar to the consumer brand literature, and the basic psy-chological mechanisms are unlikely to be dif erent. Recruitment scholars have shown that applicants can recall a greater number of associations for i rms they are more familiar with relative to less famil-iar i rms (Brooks et  al., 2003). Further, scholars have shown that applicants’ familiarity with a i rm inl uences whether they develop complex or surface

288 Employer Brand Equity and Recruitment Research

Awareness Direct Effects Recruitment scholars have found evidence that

job seekers’ awareness of an organization, concep-tualized as ease of recall, positively impacts appli-cants’ intentions and behaviors (Gatewood et  al., 1993; Turban, 2001). For example, Gatewood and colleagues (1993) found that university students exposed to organizations through their coursework reported greater intentions to apply to the organiza-tions when the same organizations were also poten-tial employers.

h e ef ects of familiarity are more complex. Brooks and colleagues (2004) found evidence that, relative to applicants who were less familiar with an organization, potential applicants with a greater number of associations with the organization could draw on these to come up with more reasons to work at these i rms and thus reported greater inten-tions to pursue employment. However, Brooks et  al. (2004) found that the same applicants also had a greater number of negative associations they could draw on when thinking about reasons to avoid certain organizations. h us, applicants who were more familiar with a i rm had greater inten-tions to pursue and also to avoid employment at a i rm relative to less knowledgeable applicants, sug-gesting that it is critical to understand the choice context in which employer brand associations are studied.

Employer Brand Associations and Need Satisfaction Surface Associations

Surface associations refer to organizational attraction and the general impressions, and atti-tudes toward a potential employer. Unlike com-plex associations that are more specii c, attraction is a global assessment (Collins & Stevens, 2002; Highhouse et  al., 2003)  but can have signii cant ef ects on job seekers’ decisions. For example, recruitment researchers have consistently found that organizational attraction is positively related to job choice decisions and, importantly, is related to job choice decisions above and beyond the ef ects of more detailed job and organizational attributes (Chapman et al., 2005).

Employer brand associations impact applicants’ behaviors because they rel ect an employer’s abil-ity to satisfy potential applicants’ needs (Kristof, 1996). Indeed, people are attracted to organizations with characteristics they perceive match their own (Cable & Judge 1996). Person–Organization i t is a global assessment of i t between an individual and

could maximize rewards and minimize conse-quences related to working for a specii c employer (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).

A number of recent studies have focused on the characteristics of employer brands that have sym-bolic appeal to prospective applicants (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). In contrast to utilitarian needs of pleasure seeking and pain avoidance related to instrumental associations, symbolic associations satisfy social needs such as self-expression and social approval (Highhouse et al., 2007). Drawing on social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994), Cable and Graham (2000) suggested that more prestigious employers have appeal partly because joining an organization is a concrete public expression of a per-son’s abilities, values, and traits. People want to asso-ciate with i rms with good reputations to enhance their perceived social status and self-esteem (Dutton & Dukerich, 1994). Using both a student sample and an employee sample, Lievens and Highhouse (2003) found evidence that potential applicants can dif erentiate banks more easily through symbolic trait inferences than instrumental attributes.

Employer Brands and Employment Decisions

Employer brand equity is the impact of a cur-rent or potential future employee’s employer brand perceptions on his or her behaviors, emotions, and associations related to employment decisions at a particular organization. Employer brands can impact a range of outcomes from a potential appli-cant’s reaction to recruitment practices, submitting a job application, choosing the organization over its competitors, voluntary turnover decisions, positive or negative word-of-mouth, and spillover ef ects to the product brand.

Barber (1998) classii ed recruitment into three phases:  (1)  generating job opportunities and applying to openings, (2) remaining an applicant, and (3) making an acceptance decision. To date, most research on employer brands has focused on the i rst phase—generating job opportunities and applying to openings. During this early phase, applicants search and screen employers exten-sively and have undeveloped knowledge of mul-tiple opportunities and little actual contact with organizations (Barber, 1998). A  potential appli-cant’s awareness and associations with an employer may have a particularly salient impact on poten-tial applicants’ behaviors during this early phase (Collins & Stevens, 2002).

289Collins, Kanar

an organization—a recent meta-analysis found that perceived i t was the strongest predictor of organiza-tional attraction (Chapman et al., 2005).

Complex Employer Brand Associations A large body of evidence suggests that job and

organizational characteristics have a strong impact on job application decisions (e.g., Collins, 2007) and job acceptance intentions (Chapman et al., 2005). Chapman and colleagues’ (2005) meta-analysis found that job and organizational characteristics had a direct ef ect on both organizational attrac-tion and job acceptance intentions, suggesting com-plex associations impact global evaluations but also have a unique inl uence on acceptance intentions. Some studies have found that symbolic attributes explain additional variance in application inten-tions beyond perceptions of instrumental attributes (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).

Additional Research on Needs Satisfaction View of Employer Brands

In the preceding paragraphs we reviewed evi-dence that both surface and complex associations impact job choice. We also reviewed evidence that each plays a unique role in inl uencing attraction outcomes and may have a slightly dif erent nomo-logical network. Needs-satisfaction models imply that a potential applicant’s awareness and associa-tions for an organization impact job choice through i t perceptions. However, the reasons that potential applicants rely on dif erent types of brand associa-tions for job choice decisions is less clear. h is is an area of the employer brand equity literature that could benei t from new theoretical and empirical exploration. Specii cally, although there is some initial evidence that awareness, surface associa-tions, and complex associations are related to job search decisions, much more research and theory are needed to help us understand how each of these associations is related to specii c types of decisions and that may have greater relevance for particular job choice decisions. Further research is also needed to help understand how these associations may interact with one another and under what condi-tions job seekers may be more or less likely to draw on specii c associations when evaluating an employ-ment opportunity.

Inl uencing Job Seekers’ Employer Brand Perceptions

In the preceding section, we argued that job seekers’ decisions (e.g., applying for openings,

staying in the selection process, accepting of ers) are af ected by brand awareness and brand knowledge (general and specii c beliefs regarding an organiza-tion). Besides understanding the key associations that may drive job seeker behaviors, it is also impor-tant to understand how i rms can ef ectively shape the beliefs of these individuals. Marketing related activities (e.g., advertising, event sponsorships) have been seen as organizations’ primary tools to per-suade and manipulate consumers’ knowledge and beliefs about a brand (Aaker, 1996). Although mar-keting researchers have developed multiple theories to explain the persuasion process, the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) is perhaps the most estab-lished (Petty & Krosnick, 1995). h e ELM model suggests that receivers of an advertising action are active participants in the persuasion process because they develop associations (e.g., thoughts, beliefs, elaborations) about the product(s) that are the cen-tral focus of a marketing activity to which they have been exposed (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981).

Research on ELM suggests that individuals fol-low either a peripheral or central route of persuasion when processing the information contained in a marketing activity to which they were exposed (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). h e peripheral route of persuasion occurs when recipients’ beliefs are created or changed based on simple inferences or positive associations created through cues rather than the processing of cogent arguments (Petty et al., 1983). For example, individuals may use cues such as the notoriety of the endorser or visual images in the ad to develop associations about the brand (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). h e central route of persuasion occurs when the recipients’ beliefs are created or changed based on the strength of the message arguments or content (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983). In other words, individuals develop beliefs about the company or product through direct processing (e.g., consid-eration and evaluation) of details provided in the advertisement. Both routes of persuasion are ef ec-tive for inl uencing consumers’ purchase intentions and decisions because they lead to positive beliefs about the product or service (Petty et al., 1983).

Although individual motivation is one fac-tor that inl uences the route of persuasion, com-panies can also inl uence the route of persuasion through their advertising strategies (Schumann, Petty, & Clemons, 1990). In one advertising strat-egy, companies focus on building a cogent argu-ment by including or repeating a mix of detailed information and arguments regarding the product

290 Employer Brand Equity and Recruitment Research

convey positive cues about the sponsoring organi-zation through the company’s logo located at the sponsored event and experience of job seekers at the event itself (Collins & Han, 2004).

Following the ELM, we argue here that job seek-ers are likely to process these practices peripher-ally because they do not contain enough detailed information to process centrally. h rough exposure to the organization’s logo and general cues that the company is a valid employer who may hire peo-ple like them, both active and passive job seekers are likely to become more aware of the company (Collins, 2007). Indeed, there is good evidence in the marketing literature that mere exposure to the name of a company, logos, or general positive cues positively builds awareness and familiarity with the brand (MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989). Further, mere exposure to the brand and peripheral process-ing can lead to the development of brand associa-tions that are typically general and holistic in nature (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983). Muehling and Laczniak (1988) found that peripheral processing af ected attitudes but not specii c beliefs about attributes of a brand. Similarly, Collins (2007) found that low-information recruitment practices were posi-tively related to general beliefs about the reputation of the company as an employer.

Recruitment Practices and Central Processing

Whereas some early recruitment practices follow the general cue strategy, others directly communi-cate positive detailed information and arguments or provide job seekers with an avenue to acquire detailed information. For example, Collins and Han noted that companies may use specii c adver-tising (e.g., job postings, brochures) that provides job seekers with detailed facts about the job and the organizational environment. Companies can also use organizational representatives to communicate directly with job seekers at events such as job fairs, information sessions, or other situations in which recruiters pass along detailed information and allow job seekers to probe for further details about job opportunities (Collins & Han, 2004). Finally, word-of-mouth endorsements or conversation (e.g., current or former employees or family members of employers sharing details of their experience work-ing for the organization) provide job seekers with detailed insights on the company, jobs, career paths, and so forth (Collins, 2007).

h ese high-information recruitment practices directly communicate positive detailed information

or service (Haugtvedt, Schumann, Schneier, & Warren, 1994). h is strategy leads to and reinforces the central route of persuasion because recipients are able to evaluate the strength of the arguments. In a second advertising strategy, i rms focus on commu-nicating or changing general positive cues in the ad (Schumann et al., 1990). h is second strategy forces recipients to follow the peripheral route of persua-sion because the cues provide no detailed informa-tion or cogent arguments to process. h us, dif erent advertising strategies are likely to af ect consumer purchase decisions through dif erent associations developed through dif erent routes of persuasion (Haugtvedt et al., 1994).

As with the brand equity research from market-ing, there is a strong parallel between recruitment strategies and the aforementioned marketing strate-gies in terms of inl uence on individual associations. Indeed, recruitment researchers have drawn on ELM to begin to articulate how organizations can af ect the employer associations held by job search-ers (Cable & Turban, 2001; Collins, 2007; Collins & Han, 2004). Recruitment practices vary greatly in terms of the information that they provide, rang-ing from general cues to detailed information and arguments about job opportunities. If these recruit-ment practices operate in the same manner as mar-keting activities, then we expect that the dif erent recruitment strategies will af ect application inten-tions through dif erent routes of persuasion.

Recruitment Practices and Peripheral Processing

As with advertising and marketing, organizations can develop and use low-information recruitment practices that should elicit peripheral processing on the part of active or passive job seekers. Indeed, Collins argued that a large number of organiza-tional recruitment activities follow the strategy of providing limited information and instead rely on providing only general cues about the organiza-tion and its employment opportunities (Collins, 2007; Collins & Han, 2004). For example, Collins and Han (2004) noted that companies use general advertising recruitment practices (e.g., display ads, banner ads on websites) and provide low amounts of information and usually only general positive cues to job seekers through logos, pictures, or associa-tions projected in the visuals of the advertisement. Further, companies may use sponsorship activities (e.g., sponsoring events on campuses ranging from tailgate parties to educational events, donating money for naming rights to classrooms or buildings)

291Collins, Kanar

the company’s products and services, brand visibil-ity does not provide enough information for indi-viduals to develop beliefs about product attributes (Keller, 1993).

Corporate brand visibility may also have spill-over ef ects on job seekers (Barber, 1998). As is the case with consumers, brand visibility is unlikely to provide enough information about work conditions to inl uence job seekers’ beliefs regarding job attri-butes and instead only leads to the development of positive attitudes toward the brand and other surface associations (Keller, 1993). h erefore, we argue that corporate brand visibility inl uences the application behaviors of job seekers by increasing their aware-ness of the company as an employer and building surface brand associations of the company as an employer. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that job seekers begin to develop awareness of the company as an employer through exposure to the company’s advertising (Cable et al., 2000) or gen-eral image or reputation (Gatewood et  al., 1993). Further, Cable and Turban (2001) argued that the overall visibility of the company’s brand may act to signal the quality and viability of the company as an employer, increasing job seekers’ positive attitudes toward the company. In fact, Gatewood and colleagues (1993) found that job seekers were more attracted to well-known rather than unknown companies.

Interaction of Recruitment Practices and Corporate Brand Visibility

It is important to note that recruitment practices do not exist in a vacuum and that job seekers who are exposed to recruitment practices may already have come in contact with the organization through experience with the products or services of the com-pany or through general marketing activities (Cable & Turban, 2001; Collins & Han, 2004). h erefore, it is important to consider the relative ef ectiveness of low- and high-information recruitment practices in light of the existing corporate brand visibility that job seekers have developed. In fact, there is some early evidence to suggest that corporate brand awareness or prior exposure to the company’s prod-ucts or services may moderate the ef ectiveness of low- and high-information recruitment strategies (Collins, 2007; Collins & Han, 2004).

In the case of low-information recruitment practices, Collins (2007) in ef ect argued that low-information recruitment practices and corpo-rate brand visibility may act as substitutes for one another. h at is, the two are potentially redundant

and arguments or provide job seekers with an ave-nue to acquire detailed information. Because job seekers can evaluate the cogency of the arguments that are presented, these recruitment practices will af ect these individuals through the central route of persuasion. When individuals process centrally, they engage in much deeper assessment of the con-tent and message of the persuasive action, leading to detailed and specii c associations (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983). In addition, the cognitive ef ort involved in central processing has spillover ef ects that create general images and beliefs in the minds of consum-ers (Muehling & Laczniak, 1988). Because they lead to central processing, we predict that recruitment practices that provide detailed information will lead to intentions to apply through their ef ect on both general and specii c brand associations.

Corporate Brand Visibility Although recruitment practices are a key set of

activities that an HR department can use to inl u-ence employer brand equity and perceptions of the organization as an employer, the beliefs held by job seekers may also be inl uenced by factors outside the direct control of the organization. In this chapter, we specii cally focus on corporate brand visibility as a way to outline how non-HR factors may impact job seekers’ employer brand perceptions. Although we focus on corporate brand visibility as a higher level view of how a company’s product and service brands may af ect job seekers, exposure to the products and services of the organization through marketing and advertising, direct experience of using the product or service, or indirect experience through word-of-mouth from friends or family members may be the more direct way that brand visibility and product or service brand associations are developed in the minds of job seekers.

Corporate brand visibility, dei ned as the extent to which companies have created awareness of their name, symbol, or logo through marketing and advertising, plays an important role in inl uenc-ing consumer purchase intentions and behaviors (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). For example, corporate brand visibility helps to create consumer awareness of the products and services of ered by the com-pany (Aaker, 1991). Further, corporate brand vis-ibility acts as a signal of the overall quality of the products and services of the company, increasing consumers’ perceptions of the attractiveness of the products and services (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). Although corporate brand visibility is powerful for building initial awareness of and attraction toward

292 Employer Brand Equity and Recruitment Research

centrally through some other means (e.g., using low-information recruitment practices to create employer brand awareness and surface associations).

Future Directions Based on Constructive Choice Processes

Although the current body of research related to employer brand equity and recruitment is exciting and has led to a greater understanding of how the impact of brand on job seekers’ decisions, some large gaps still exist in connecting recruitment and brand equity research with the actual decision-making process that may drive how job seekers behave and interpret available and relevant information. As noted earlier, brands and brand associations may af ect consumers and job seekers through the pro-cess of interpreting if the brand associations held in memory match the individual’s needs. In addition, brands and brand associations inl uence consumers and potential applicants’ behaviors through con-structive choice processes, in which consumers and applicants construct preference during their deci-sion making.

Bettman and colleagues’ constructive choice framework suggests that consumers strive to satisfy goals inherent in the judgment and choice process itself (Bettman, Payne, & Luce, 1998). h ese con-structive processes are important for situations in which consumers do not have a strong or clearly dei ned preference and their judgment and choice processes are inl uenced by other unique charac-teristics of the individual, the social context, or the nature of the decision problem—in other words, most consumer choices (Bettman et al., 1998).

Bettman and colleagues reviewed an extensive literature on problem solving and developed a par-simonious framework based on four choice goals. Consumers generally aim to satisfy four meta-goals related to the choice process: increase the accuracy of their choice, reduce decision-making ef ort, increase the ease by which they can justify the deci-sion to others, and reduce negative emotions asso-ciated with choice process. Dif erent goals tend to be salient for dif erent choices based on individual, social, and problem factors. For most purchase deci-sions, strong positive associations for a brand act as a signal of quality, which allows a consumer to choose a product with coni dence, without going through extensive search and evaluation of the product. h e consumer would choose this brand without much deliberation because the overall evaluation of the brand is diagnostic—he or she has a positive atti-tude toward one brand and less favorable attitudes

as they both contain low amounts of specii c infor-mation about employment opportunities, the cul-ture of the organization, or other details and instead work to ef ect awareness and surface employer brand associations through peripheral processing (Cable & Turban, 2001; Collins, 2007). Because they af ect the same types of employer brand associa-tions, low-information practices are unlikely to have signii cant ef ects on job seekers who have already developed awareness of the company as an employer and developed general attitudes toward the com-pany as an employer through exposure to its prod-ucts and services (i.e., medium to high corporate brand awareness). In contrast, job seekers who have not had prior exposure to the company through its products and services will also more likely be blank slates when it comes to the company as an employer. In this case, low-information recruitment practices, through peripheral processing, are likely to have their maximal ef ect on building awareness of the company as an employer and building surface employer brand associations (Collins, 2007).

In contrast, Collins (2007) seemed to argue that corporate brand visibility  and high-information recruitment practices are synergistic. First, high-information recruitment practices and cor-porate brand visibility appear to be related to dif-ferent brand associations. As noted previously, high-information recruitment practices are more likely to lead to the development of complex brand associations, whereas corporate brand visibility is likely to lead to the development of employer brand awareness and surface associations. Second, as noted earlier, high-information recruitment practices require central processing, yet individu-als are likely to exert the ef ort for central pro-cessing only if they have already developed initial awareness and interest in an organization (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In combination, companies that have created higher corporate brand visibility are likely to have created the level of motivation in job seekers (i.e., higher levels of employer brand awareness and surface brand associations) that will encourage them to exert the ef ort required to pro-cess centrally the detailed information inherent in high-information recruitment practices (Collins, 2007). h us, high-information practices are more likely to be ef ective for companies that have high corporate brand visibility and less ef ective for those with low corporate brand visibility. To increase the ef ectiveness of high-information recruitment practices, companies with low corporate brand vis-ibility will have to create the motivation to process

293Collins, Kanar

to a manageable few (Barber, 1998). Ef ort reduc-tion goals are usually juxtaposed with accuracy goals. To obtain greater accuracy one must often exert greater ef ort through information search and evaluation. Potential applicants will make judg-ments and decisions about job search dif erently depending on the extent to which ef ort or accu-racy goals are salient at the time. h e salience of ef ort or accuracy goals depends on problem dif-i culty (complexity), knowledge (accessibility/diagnosticity), and other factors that make ef ort or accuracy important (e.g., feedback on progress). Accessibility/diagnosticity trade-of s are essentially ef ort/accuracy trade-of s (Bettman et  al., 1998). For example, applicants may rely on particular brand associations that are diagnostic as simple cues to make judgments and choices regarding employ-ers (Kanar, Collins, & Bell, 2010). Job searchers who are familiar with a particular employer may be able to recall a diagnostic evaluation (i.e., surface associations) from memory when making decisions about an organization. Further, they are likely to rely on diagnostic surface or complex associations because this method of decision making is easier than in-depth comparisons involving multiple complex associations of each employer. By fol-lowing a diagnostic decision model, the decision maker may be able to maximize both accuracy and ef ort goals.

Negative employer associations appear to exemplify diagnostic complex associations. Kanar, Collins, and Bell (2010) found that negative infor-mation about the work environment or i nancial future of a potential employer strongly inl uenced applicants’ impressions both immediately after exposure and one week later. Positive informa-tion about the same attributes had a small ef ect on impressions immediately after exposure but no signii cant ef ect one week later. Importantly, the authors ruled out dif erences in credibility or extremeness of the information.

Kanar and colleagues (2010) also found that applicants freely recalled negative information more than the positive information one week after expo-sure, suggesting that negative brand associations may form more easily than positive associations. However, the recalled negative information often took the form of surface associations whereas job seekers exposed to positive or negative informa-tion did not dif er in their recall of more complex attribute-related associations. Although additional research in this area is needed, applicants’ greater recall of negative surface associations is important

toward the alternatives. In some choice situations, a consumer may reverse his or her brand prefer-ence based on characteristics of the context such as response mode. h ese constructive processes are important because few consumer choice situa-tions are such that consumers have complete infor-mation, and one preference clearly dominates the alternatives.

Constructive Choice Process Model in the Job Search Context

h roughout the preceding review of the lit-erature on employer brand equity and job search, places were mentioned where employer brand equity would benei t through a better link to the employment context. Bettman and colleagues’ (1998) constructive choice goal framework suggests that factors related to the individual (i.e., knowl-edge and goals), decision problem, and the social context are dif erentially related to decision-making processes (Bettman et  al., 1998). We adapt this framework here to suggest that applicants’ employer brand perceptions inl uence behaviors depending on the activation of choice goals.

h e constructive choice framework is most rel-evant when people have imperfect information, do not have clearly established preferences, have lim-ited cognitive resources, change their understanding of the decision task over time, and have multiple goals for the task that may imply trade-of s. Indeed, this is relevant to employer choice because of the unstructured nature of employment deci-sions, applicants’ unfamiliarity with the task or potential employers, multiple employment goals, dii cult-to-assess organizational characteristics such as culture, and the large amount of information about potential employers (Barber, 1998; Soelberg, 1967). Job search and decision making are usu-ally novel tasks because of changes to individuals (i.e., career progression) and the environment (e.g., economy); therefore, a constructive model of choice i ts naturally with employer decision making. We next describe the choice goals and link them to applicants’ employer brand perceptions to under-stand employer brand equity.

Effort and Accuracy Job searchers have limited cognitive resources

that they must conserve during search and choice processes. For example, college job searchers can-not process all of the information about potential employers particularly early in the process and therefore screen out options to reduce the number

294 Employer Brand Equity and Recruitment Research

associated with the search process or a particular decision. Trade-of s between important goals or values are often dii cult; trade-of dii culty is an important determinant of the salience of minimiz-ing negative emotion goals (Bettman et al., 1998). Further, situations in which job seekers experience little feedback on progress toward an acceptable job can make negative emotions important, because emotional state is always accessible. Employment search is often characterized by disappointments and uncertainty—whereas other choice goals may sometimes be salient, negative emotions may be accessible throughout the process and play an important role therein.

Justifying Choice Because applicants’ decisions about where to

work are usually high-stakes, public, major life decisions, they are likely to prefer organizations that they can justify to themselves and to others. Soelberg (1967) found evidence that job searchers often developed an implicit favorite choice at some point early in their job searches, but still contin-ued to search for alternatives as an ef ort to justify their early favorite. Ease of justii cation is a social goal because it is motivated by an audience’s stan-dards. h us, ease of justii cation goals i ts well with the symbolic theory advanced by Highhouse and colleagues (2006). Choice of employer has impor-tant consequences for self, spouse, and family; former employer; and friends. In general, greater accountability makes justii cation goals more salient (Bettman et  al., 1998). Because job search is more social than product search, we expect that job searchers may be motivated by both explicit and implicit justii cation goals.

Future Research Questions for Employer Brand Equity Based on Decision Goals

In the preceding text we aimed to extend the job search literature by conceptualizing the moti-vational aspects of employer brand equity in terms of choice goals. In ef ect, the goal was to argue that the salience of choice goals such as accuracy, ef ort, negative emotions, and the need to justify the decision may also impact the extent to which a job seeker may rely on dif erent brand associations when making job choice decisions. Specii cally, the choice goals will be more or less salient depending on characteristics of the individual and the context. To understand better the ef ectiveness of recruit-ment activities and the brand associations that they build, we believe that future research is needed

because it could imply that a i rm may not be able to address the original reason for the negative impression directly because a negative overall evalu-ation of the i rm came to mind more easily than the reason for the negative evaluation. However, appli-cants who can recall diagnostic surface associations that are positive for a particular employer may draw on these positive surface associations when they encounter negative information, potentially miti-gating the ef ects of negative information depend-ing on interpretational biases (e.g., Van Hoye & Lievens, 2009).

Negative associations that are not directly related to employment at an organization may also be more accessible in some contexts than others. Job search-ers have a greater number of associations (positive and negative) for more familiar i rms. Brooks and colleagues (2003) found that potential applicants’ associations organizations will be accessible depend-ing on characteristics of the decision problem. For tasks that involved rejecting (accepting) an organi-zation, the authors found that negative (positive) associations were accessible and inl uenced the intended behaviors. Unlike the Kanar et al. (2010) study, the associations were based on product brand knowledge and likely not diagnostic for employer choice.

Accuracy-ef ort goals add explanatory power beyond accessibility-diagnosticity models because they also suggest that characteristics of the indi-vidual, the problem structure, and social context will impact job searchers’ available resources and determine the use of heuristic processes. When job searchers begin the search process, they are often faced with a large number and wide array of potential employers and often have vague infor-mation on each. In a context such as this, when a decision maker has high information demands and limited cognitive resources, individuals often rely on noncompensatory decision-making processes. For example, Soelberg (1967) found that, when faced with a large number of options, job seek-ers screen out undesirable employment options to reduce the number to a mangeable few. h us, it is likely that job seekers may begin to draw on dif er-ent brand associations to make decisions depend-ing on whether they are trying to minimize ef ort or increase accuracy.

Minimizing Negative Emotion Search for a new job also often involves nega-

tive emotions (Kanfer et al., 2001). h us, applicants may make decisions to reduce negative emotions

295Collins, Kanar

examine when the lower cognitive ef ort leads to positive versus negative accuracy in job seekers with more experience or those with greater employer brand knowledge.

In contrast, when job seekers are unfamiliar with an organization or have limited brand associ-ations, cognitive demands will be higher, as it takes more ef ort to develop the original node or con-nect information to limited existing associations. Because of the cognitive processing challenge, ef ort reduction goals may be more salient than accuracy goals, leading job seekers to observe and tap into only surface level information and use this limited information to develop surface brand asso-ciations to make job search decisions. For exam-ple, young job seekers and college students with less work experience and knowledge of potential employers may be more prone to make assump-tions of positive associations based only on their familiarity with potential employers. In such cases, af ective attributes may have a greater impact on employer-related decisions than instrumental attributes. Again, research is needed to understand when job seekers with limited brand knowledge will exert the ef ort to pursue more information and develop more brand associations in order to increase accuracy.

As noted, ef ort and accuracy are often trade-of s and negative information may have greater diag-nosticity, suggesting that negative brand associa-tions may be more frequently used in job choice tasks involving screening or rejecting (Brooks et al., 2003). h us, a third way to study ef ort and accu-racy choice goals is by examining the role of exist-ing employer knowledge in the context of negative brand associations. For example, it is possible that the trade-of s between ef ort and accuracy goals may moderate the ambivalence ef ects of familiarity on applicants decisions. In Brooks and colleagues’ (2004) study, accessibility of the positive or nega-tive associations for a product brand was primed by the choice tasks. However, if the negative associa-tions had not been inherent to the product brands but instead were related to employment at the orga-nization, the negative information may have been perceived as diagnostic and overwhelmed the acces-sibility ef ects. Further, negative associations may also be more salient than positive associations when resources are constrained, under time pressure, or when potential applicants’ cognitive resources are depleted due to stress. Negative information may also be more salient when job seekers are fac-ing trade-of s between goals because minimizing

to link employer brands more clearly job seekers’ decision goals.

A i rst way to study the link between brand asso-ciations and decision goals would be to look at the dif erent phases of employment search and choice. For example, job searchers are overwhelmed with potential employers early in the job search process and screen out undesirable options. In addition, job searchers may be risk averse early in their search and thus pursue safer big-name employers at i rst. h us, reducing ef ort and negative emotion may be impor-tant early in the search process. Later, as an appli-cant is near a job of er acceptance, choice goals such as accuracy and ease of justii cation may be more salient—as he or she wants to make sure to pick the best choice and one that he or she can justify to others. We believe it would be productive to study the relative ef ectiveness and impact of awareness/ familiarity, surface associations, and complex asso-ciations across phases of the job search process that are likely to lead to shifting decision goals on the part of the job seeker.

A second opportunity to integrate brand com-ponents with decision-making goals may be to investigate ef ort–accuracy trade-of s related to job searchers’ existing knowledge and experience. To date, scholars have oversampled college student job searchers and have less frequently investigated job searchers who likely have greater knowledge of alternative employers and their own personal needs (Kanfer et  al., 2001). Job searchers with greater knowledge of alternative employers will experience less cognitive load and will be able to learn more information about a brand because they have a greater capacity to attach new perceptions to their existing memory nodes and associations. Following this logic, job seekers with extensive knowledge may be able to create much more elaborate brand asso-ciations and follow more rigorous decision mak-ing in the pursuit of accuracy because the ef ort threshold is lower. However, when decision makers have relatively large stores of perceptions regard-ing a company, they may be less motivated to learn new information about a brand and update their beliefs (Johnson & Russo, 1984). h us, it is possible that more experienced job seekers who have exist-ing brand associations may make errors in decision making if their associations are no longer accurate and they lack the motivation to pursue and absorb new information or simply ignore new information at hand. In ef ect, in the pursuit of limiting ef ort, experienced job seekers may also reduce accuracy. Clearly, it is necessary for future researchers to

296 Employer Brand Equity and Recruitment Research

seekers rely on specii c associations to evaluate an employment opportunity. A potentially productive line of new research is to examine the connections among recruitment, employer brand associations, and decision making through the lens of decision goal models, and we have attempted to lay out some potential future research directions based on this intersection.

References Aaker , D. A. ( 1991 ). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the

value of a brand name . New York, NY :  h e Free Press.

Aaker , D. A. ( 1996 ). Building strong brands. New York, NY :  h e

Free Press.

Anderson , J. R. ( 1983 ). h e architecture of cognition . Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

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

organization. Academy of Management Review , 14 , 20–39 .

Barber , A. E. ( 1998 ). Recruiting employees: Individual and organi-zational perspectives . h ousand Oaks, CA :  SAGE.

Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F., & Payne, J.W. (1998). Constructive

consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25 ,

187-217.

Brooks , M. E. , Highhouse , S. , Russell , S. S. , & Mohr , D. C.

( 2004 ). Familiarity, ambivalence, and i rm reputation:  Is

corporate fame a double-edged sword? Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 ( 5 ), 904–914 .

Cable , D. M. , Aiman-Smith , L. , Mulvey , P. W. , & Edwards ,

J. R. ( 2000 ). h e sources and accuracy of job applicants’

beliefs about organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal , 43 , 1076–1085 .

Cable , D. M. , & Graham , M. E. ( 2000 ). h e determinants of

job seekers’ reputation perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 21 ( 8 ), 929–947 .

Cable , D. M. , & Judge , T. A. ( 1996 ). Person-organization i t, job

choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 67 , 294–311 .

Cable , D. M. , & Turban , D. B. ( 2001 ). Establishing the dimen-

sions, sources, and value of job seekers’ employer knowl-

edge during recruitment. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management , 20 , 115–163 .

Cappelli , P. ( 1999 ). Career jobs are dead. California Management Review , 42 , 146–167.

Chapman , D. , Uggerslev , K.L. , Carroll , S.A. , Piasentin , K.A. ,

& Jones , D.A. ( 2005 ). Applicant attraction to organizations

and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of

recruiting outcomes . Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 ( 5 ),

928-944 .

Chernev , A. ( 2001, March ). h e impact of common features

on consumer preferences: A case of coni rmatory reasoning.

Journal of Consumer Research , 27 , 475–488 .

Collins , C. J. ( 2007 ). h e interactive ef ects of recruitment prac-

tices and product awareness on job seekers’ employer knowl-

edge and application behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 ( 1 ), 180–190 .

Collins , C. J. , & Han , J. ( 2004 ). Exploring applicant pool

quantity and quality: h e ef ects of early recruitment prac-

tice strategies, corporate advertising, and i rm reputation.

Personnel Psychology , 57 , 685–717 .

Collins , C. J. , & Stevens , C. K. ( 2002 ). h e relationship between

early recruitment-related activities and the application

negative emotions may increase the accessibility of negative employer associations.

Another interesting path for future research could be to examine whether positive employer brands have unintended negative ef ects on recruit-ment outcomes because of ef ort goals. For exam-ple, applicants with strong and favorable surface associations have little motivation to seek additional information because their current employer brand perceptions are diagnostic for choice. h e positive global brand association may lead applicants to overlook “realistic” information such as contained in realistic job previews (RJPs) that aims to deter certain types of applicants. Further, applicants may distort or discount such information. For example, research from consumer marketing suggests that when consumers encounter a feature of an initially preferred brand that is unattractive and irrefutable, the consumer will discount the importance of the attribute (Chernov, 2001). Again, in the context of alternative decision goals of the job seeker, we argue that future research should examine when strong favourable brand associations could lead job search-ers to discount negative or realistic information contained in realistic job previews.

Conclusion Overall, we believe that a brand equity approach

to understanding recruitment and job seeker choice is a promising avenue of research. First, theory and research on brand equity seems to have added value in understanding what may drive job seekers’ deci-sions, especially during the i rst phase of recruit-ment. Specii cally, there is some initial evidence that awareness, surface associations, and complex associations regarding the company as an employer are signii cantly related to attraction, intentions to apply, and decisions to apply to organizations. Second, this approach has also provided recruit-ment researchers a valuable way to help understand how companies can use general types of recruitment practices potentially to build these brand associa-tions in the minds of job seekers. Although there is some initial evidence supporting these initial frameworks, additional research is needed to spec-ify these models more completely, including addi-tional work to better identify relevant surface and complex associations, identify and test additional low- and high-information recruitment practices (particularly given the recent boom in new recruit-ing technologies), the potential interaction of dif-ferent brand associations, and additional theory to understand the conditions that may af ect when job

297Collins, Kanar

(pp.  532–539) . Ann Arbor, MI :  Association for Consumer

Research.

Lynch , J. G. , Mamorstein , H. , & Weigold , M. F. ( 1988 ). Choices

from sets including remembered brands:  Use of recalled

attributes and prior overall evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 ( 2 ), 169–184 .

MacInnis , D. J. , & Jaworski , B. J. (1989, October). Information

processing from advertisements:  Toward an interactive

framework. Journal of Marketing , 53 , 1–23 .

Muehling , D. D. , & Laczniak , R. N. ( 1988 ). Advertising’s

immediate and delayed inl uence on brand atti-

tudes:  Considerations across message-involvement levels.

Journal of Advertising, 17 , 23–34 .

Petty , R. E. , Briñol , P. , & and DeMarree , K. G. ( 2007 ). h e

meta-cognitive model (MCM) of attitudes:  Implications

for attitude measurement, change, and strength. Social Cognition, 25 ( 5 ), 657–686.

Petty , R. E. , & Cacioppo , J. T. ( 1981 ). Attitudes and per-suasion:  Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque,

IA :  William C. Brown.

Petty , R. E. , & Cacioppo , J. T. ( 1983 ). Central and persua-

sion: Application to advertising. In L. Percy & A. Woodside

(Eds.), Advertising and consumer psychology (pp. 3–23) .

Lexington, MA :  Lexington Books.

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

Petty , R. E. , Cacioppo , J. T. , & Schumann , D. ( 1983 ). Central

and peripheral routes to advertising ef ectiveness: h e mod-

erating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research ,

10 , 135–146 .

Petty , R. E. , & Krosnick , J. A. ( 1995) . Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ :  Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rossiter , J. R. , & Percy , L. ( 1987 ). Advertising and promotion management . New York, NY :  McGraw-Hill.

Rynes , S. L. , Bretz , R. D. , & Gerhart , B. ( 1991 ). h e impor-

tance of recruitment in job choice: A dif erent way of look-

ing. Personnel Psychology , 44 , 487–521 .

Schumann , D. W. , Petty , R. E. , & Clemons , D. S. ( 1990 ).

Predicting the ef ectiveness of dif erent strategies of adver-

tising variation:  A  test of the repetition variation-variation

hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research , 17 , 192–202 .

Soelberg , P. O. ( 1967 ). Unprogrammed decision making.

Industrial Management Review , 8 , 19–29 .

Taylor , M. S. , & Collins , C. J. ( 2000 ). Organizational recruit-

ment: Enhancing the intersection of theory and practice. In

C. L. Cooper & E. A. Locke (Eds.), Industrial and organiza-tional psychology: Linking theory and practice (pp. 304–334) .

Oxford :  Blackwell.

Turban , D. B. ( 2001 ). Organizational attractiveness as an

employer on college campuses:  An examination of the

applicant population. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 58 ,

293–312 .

Turban , D. B. , & Cable , D. M. ( 2003 ). Firm reputation and

applicant pool characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24 , 733–751 .

Van Hoye , G. , & Lievens , F. ( 2009 ). Tapping the grape-

vine: A closer look at word-of-mouth as a recruitment source.

Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 , 341–352 .

Wilke , W. ( 1986 ). Consumer behavior. New  York, NY :  John

Wiley & Sons.

Wyer , R. S. , & Srull , T. K. ( 1989 ). Person memory and judg-

ment. Psychological Review , 96 , 58–83 .

decisions of new labor-market entrants:  A  brand-equity

approach to recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 ,

1121–1133 .

Dutton , J. E. , Dukerich , J. M. , & Harquail , C. V. ( 1994 ).

Organizational images and member Identii cation,

Administrative Science Quarterly , 39 , 239–263 .

Farquhar , P. H. ( 1989 , September). Managing brand equity.

Marketing Research, 24–33 .

Gatewood , R. D. , Gowan , M. A. , & Lautenschlager , G. J.

( 1993 ). Corporate image, recruitment image, and initial

job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal , 36 ,

414–427 .

Haugtvedt , C. P. , Schumann , D. W. , Schneier , W. L. , & Warren ,

W. L. ( 1994 ). Advertising repetition and variation strate-

gies:  Implications for understanding attitude strength.

Journal of Consumer Research , 21 , 176–189 .

Heilman , C. M. , Bowman , D. , & Wright , G. P. ( 2000 ). h e

evolution of brand preferences and choice behaviors of con-

sumers new to a market. Journal of Marketing Research , 37 ,

139–155 .

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

attraction to organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 63 , 986–1001 .

Highhouse , S. , h ornbury , E. , & Little , I. ( 2007 ). Social iden-

tity functions of attraction to organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 103 , 134–146 .

Highhouse , S. , Zickar , M. , h orsteinson , T. , Stierwalt , S. ,

& Slaughter , J. ( 1999 ). Assessing company employment

image:  An example in the fast food industry. Personnel Psychology , 52 , 151–172 .

Johnson , E.J. & Russo , J.E. ( 1984 ). Product familiarity and

learning new information . Journal of Consumer Research , 11 ,

542-550 .

Kanar , A. M. , Collins , C. J. , & Bell , B. ( 2010 ). A comparison

of the ef ects of positive and negative information on job

seekers’ organizational attraction and attribute recall. Human Performance, 23 ( 3 ), 193–212 .

Kanfer , R. , Wanberg , C. R. , & Kantrowitz , T. M. ( 2001 ). A

personality motivational analysis and meta-analytic review.

Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 837–855 .

Keller , K. L. ( 1993 ). Conceptualizing, measuring, and manag-

ing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing , 57 ,

1–30 .

Keller , K.L. ( 2003 ). Strategic Brand Management:  Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity , 2 nd ed. Prentice

Hall , Upper Saddle River, NJ .

Kirmani , A. , & Zeithaml , V. ( 1993 ). Advertising, perceived qual-

ity and brand image. In D. A. Aaker & A. L. Biel (Eds.),

Brand equity and advertising:  Advertising’s role in building strong brands. Mahwah, NJ :  Lawrence Erlbaum, 143–162.

Kristof , A. L. ( 1996 ) Person–Organization Fit:  An integrative

review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implica-

tions. Personnel Psychology , 49 , 1–49 .

Lassar , W. , Mittal , B. , & Sharma , A. ( 1995 ). Measuring

customer-based brand equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing ,

12 , 11–19 .

Lievens , F. , & Highhouse , S. ( 2003 ). h e relation of instrumen-

tal and symbolic attributes to a company’s attractiveness as an

employer. Personnel Psychology , 56 , 75–102 .

Lutz , R. J. , MacKenzie , S. B. , & Belch , G. E. ( 1983 ). Attitude

toward the ad as a mediator of advertising ef ective-

ness:  Determinants and consequences. In R. P. Bagozzi

& A. M. Tybout (Eds.), Advances in consumer research