DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTSshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/68283/11... · list– one private university from Hyderabad, one private B-School from Delhi NCR and another privately

79

CHAPTER 5

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

5.1 Results from Study 1

5.1.1 Sample Demographics of Study 1

In the first study, a 2x2x2 full factorial between-group design is implemented to test

the validity of hypothetical models 1, 2, 3 and 4 with job-seekers who are in their final

semester of coursework and are about to enter the job-market. Experimental designs

are preferred as research technique when the objective of a study is to test the impact

of new scientific or social developments on human perceptions. Experimental studies,

also known as causal research, have therefore found extensive application in clinical

trials of new drugs on humans (Schulz et al. 1996; Al-Metwalli et al. 2008), impact of

new technologies on user experience (Leong et al. 2006) and in understanding how

multiple factors simultaneously affect perceptions of end users (Lutz and Reilly 1974)

to name a few. Since the objective of this study is to understand the impact of

technical modifications in existing job advertisement designs through the internet on

job-seekers‘ inclination towards applying for the same online, the choice of

experimental design for conducting this study is justified.

Experimental studies are conducted on a sample of subjects who should be selected

from a representative portion of the target population (Trochim 2004; Wharrad and

Silcocks 2009). In non-experimental studies, it is essential that the sample be selected

in a random order in order to ensure unbiased inclusion of participants (Altman and

Bland 1999). However, in experimental studies, there is the issue of voluntary consent

from the participants to take part in the experiments (Wharrad and Silcocks 2009). At

the same time, the fact that the researchers have to control for extraneous variables in

80

order to enhance internal validity requires that some eligibility criteria have to be set

before allowing any individual to take part in the study. Therefore, the final set of

respondents can never be a complete representation of the target population- it is that

section of the population which has agreed to take part in the study and at the same

time meet the eligibility criteria to participate in the study. As a consequence, we can

never generalize the experimental study findings. In other words, experimental

designs lack external validity (Trochim 2004). However, the central objective of

experimental designs is to ensure internal validity, i.e., whether from the study one

can conclude conclusively that the change in the dependent or observed variable is

caused mainly by the predictor variables (Altman and Bland 1999). One way of

bypassing this problem of lack of random selection in experiments is to adopt the

strategy of random allocation (Featherstone and Donovan 1998) where the final pool

of study participants are randomly assigned to the different treatment conditions using

random number tables or by using software for random number generators. As long as

the participants are allocated in this manner to the treatment groups, the internal

validity of the experiment remains intact and the researchers may continue with

stochastic measurement techniques for further evaluation of participant responses

(Trochim 2004) even if the participants only represent a fraction of the actual target

population and may not cover the entire heterogeneity of the overall population.

Previous experimental studies have been conducted with students enrolled in a single

university (Dineen, Ash and Noe 2002), or members of a particular community (Lutz

and reilly 1974) which have not threatened the internal validity of the findings. In the

context of E-recruitment itself, students studying nursing at a single large hospital in

Belgium formed the final sample for one recent study (Van Hoye and Lievens

2007)Hence, to conduct any experiment, the focus of the researcher should be to

81

randomly allocate participants to treatment conditions rather than concentrate on

random sampling (Trochim 2004).

From the India Online Landscape Survey, it can be seen that students with mostly

engineering (43 %) and MBA backgrounds (37 %) occupy a significant portion of the

active job-seeker population registered in various E-recruitment websites. Hence

students who are enrolled in Bachelors of Engineering (B.E.) or Bachelors of

Technology (B.Tech.) courses and those enrolled in post graduate courses in business

administration (MBA) have been considered eligible for the final sampling frame for

study 1. It is further taken into account that the Metro cities of India account for over

70 % of active urban job-seekers (India Online Landscape Survey 2012). Hence the

sampling frame has been further narrowed down to students studying at institutes

located in Metro cities only. In India there are 8 metro cities in all which include

include Mumbai, Ahmedabad and Pune from Western India; Delhi National Capital

Region (NCR) comprising of New Delhi, Gurgaon, Noida, Faridabad and Ghaziabad

from Northern India; Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad from South India; and

Kolkata, the only metro city in Eastern India, as per India Population Statistics 2011

developed by Census Commission (www.censusindia.gov.in). A city has been

considered as a metro city as per definition given by Census Commission (2011)

which mandates that any city with population greater than 4 million should be treated

as a metro city.

Respondents/ final year students residing and/or studying at any of the Indian Metro

cities have been further identified as active job-seekers from urban India who are

about to enter the job market in less than a year. Invitation to take part in the study

was sent to universities/ institutes imparting post-graduate courses on business

administration and engineering which were located in the major metro cities identified

82

as above and which have featured in the top 50 of the ‗Best B-School Survey‘ of 2012

(Pandey and Bhattacharya 2012) conducted by Business Today and Nielsen

Company and top 50 engineering colleges featured in India Today‘s ‗India‘s Best

Colleges Survey 2012‘ (www.indiatoday.intoday.in) conducted by India Today and

Nielsen Company. These two surveys are considered respectable benchmarks for a

good institute in India (Tyagi 2012). Three institutes featured in the Business Today

list– one private university from Hyderabad, one private B-School from Delhi NCR

and another privately owned B-School from Kolkata gave their consent to have their

students take part in the experiments. No engineering college/ institute agreed to the

study invitation from the list provided by India Today. Hence the final study sample

was further restricted down to only final year Business Administration students

studying at three institutes located in three different Indian Metros. Researchers who

have used experimental designs as research methods have often used students as

surrogate for the actual target population (Greenberg 1987; Peterson 2001). Such

attempts have been criticized by many (Shuptrine 1975; Lynch 1982), citing such

practices may reduce the external validity of the study even further. Calder and

colleagues (1982) have retaliated by pointing out that since the objective is to verify

internal validity, the lack of external validity should not be a concern. Host and his

associates (2000) have empirically proven that there is no notable difference between

responses given by students and those given by mature adults given that the students

have proper idea about the research context, even better if they have themselves

experienced the conditions as have mature people. In this study context, since the

active job-seekers who are about to enter the job market are by definition the principal

users of E- recruitment, hence the question of surrogacy should not arise here. Hence

http://www.indiatoday.intoday.in/

83

the choice of final year students as the first study‘s target population should help in

enhancing the external validity of this study.

Table 3: Demographic Characteristics for Sample of Study 1

Demographic Variable Category Frequency Percentage

Gender Male

Female

255

202

55.8

44.2

Age < 20 yrs

20-25 yrs

26-30 yrs

28

403

26

6.1

88.2

5.7

Work Experience Nil

< 1 yr

1-2 yrs

2-3 yrs

>3 yrs

183

196

46

22

10

40.04

42.9

10.1

4.8

2.2

Involvement in online

job search

< 1 yr

1-2 yrs

2-3 yrs

3-4 yrs

> 4 yrs

295

99

29

10

24

64.55

21.66

6.34

2.18

5.25

Registration in online

job portals

Nil

Naukri

Monster

Timesjobs

Shine

Others

70

302

188

129

52

40

15.31

66.08

41.11

28.22

11.37

8.75

84

During the data collection process, proper permission has been sought from respective

institute authority to permit the students to take part in the data collection process.

Random Allocation technique has been used to ensure parametric estimation of results

(Forder et al. 2005). The students were contacted from the list of Final year students

enrolled in the respective institutes which was available at the admission office of the

university. It was ensured from the placement departments that none of the students

who were contacted have received any job-offer till the time of interview. The

respondents were then contacted through a notice in the student bulletin board where

it was clearly stated that the purpose of the study and voluntary participation was

invited from the students.

From the institute in Hyderabad, out of total batch strength of 800 students, 256

students agreed to take part in the study (32 %). From the institute in Gurgaon, out of

657 students in final year, 165 students agreed to volunteer for the experiment (25.12

%), while in the institute in Kolkata, out of 135 students in the passing out batch, 45

(33.3 %) gave their consent to take part in the study. In total, 466 students responded

to the invitation and agreed to take part in the study. Students in their respective

institutes were assembled in the institute auditorium on a given date and then using

the online random number generator software – research randomizer (Urbaniak and

Plous 2013), they were assigned to eight different groups. Research randomizer gives

the provision to assign treatment conditions and number of participants for a

particular experiment and computes which participant should be exposed to which

treatment. It has been successfully used in experimental research in recent times and

has become popular for its precise and easy assignment of participants randomly to

different treatments (Leong et al. 2006; Al-Metwalli et al. 2008).

85

With the help of student and faculty volunteers, the experimental survey was

conducted in eight different classrooms in each institute, where members of the eight

groups were randomly assigned by drawing cards where the names of specific

treatments were written. For example, treatment 1 was written on one card, treatment

2 on another and so on. To maintain allocation concealment (Schulz and Grimes

2002; Forder et al. 2005), the cards were put in opaque envelopes and then randomly

distributed to the students to achieve completely randomized experiment. Experiment

volunteers present at each classroom gave an initial brief about the objectives of the

study and facilitated in the survey fill-up process. On completion of the survey, the

respondents submitted their responses to the moderator and left. On final inspection, it

was found that despite repeated announcement by the moderators, nine questionnaires

had incomplete responses. These responses were dropped from the final analysis.

Thus our final sample size came down from 466 to 457 respondents. This sample size

is adequate for running experimental designs with a statistical power of 80 % and

effect size of 0.5 (Cohen 1988; Pierce et al. 2004). As a token of gratitude each

participant received a chocolate bar. Approximately 56 % respondents of study 1 are

male and 88 % are in the age group of 20-25 years. Nearly 83 % of these individuals

have less than one year of experience. Activity in online job search has been dating

back mostly to the past 1-2 years. Most of the respondents have registered in the job

portal Naukri.com (66.08 %), followed by Monster.com (41.11 %).

5.1.2 Data Analysis for Study 1

Data analysis for Study 1 was conducted in five phases. At Phase I, a multivariate

Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test the theoretical model 1,

wherein the effect of preview-mode, testimonial-type and testimonial-source on

quality, credibility, attractiveness and intention to apply taken together as the

86

dependent variable set was examined. This was followed by Phase II, where perceived

credibility and perceived quality were treated as covariates in the model and the

relationships stated in theoretical model 2 were evaluated using the multivariate

analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) technique. At Phase III, theoretical model 3 was

tested, where attractiveness was also included as a covariate along with perceived

credibility and quality in the model and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was

conducted to test the postulated hypotheses.

Finally, at Phase IV, a moderated mediation analysis was conducted to understand

whether the treatments have any moderating effect on the relationship between

perceived credibility, perceived quality, organizational attractiveness and intention to

apply and whether organizational attractiveness acted as a mediator for the inter-

relationship between perceived credibility, perceived quality and intention to apply

using structural equation modeling (SEM). In an attempt to identify which set of

treatments is best conducive of generating the most positive perceptions of quality,

credibility, organizational attractiveness and intention to apply, a post-hoc test using

Scheffe‘s procedure (Klockars and Hancock 2000) has been conducted at Phase V.

Similar exercises have been followed for the Study 2 data analysis.

5.1.2.1 Descriptive Statistics and Scale Reliability Tests

Overall, the means gave indications that the respondents in our sample had fairly high

perceptions of quality of the website (M = 3.76, SD = .7492) and credibility (M =

3.65, SD = .8342). Perceived organizational attractiveness (M = 3.5, SD = .8246) and

intention to apply (M = 3.56, SD = .9278) were also moderately high in the

individuals on an average. The correlation matrix (Table 4) gave indications that

perceived credibility is positively correlated with perceived quality (r = .383),

organizational attractiveness (r = .272) and intention to apply (r = .278). Perceived

87

quality is also positively correlated with attractiveness (r = .213) and intention to

apply (r = .203).

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Diagnostics for Study 1

Name of construct M SD 1. 2. 3. 4.

1.Perceived Credibility 3.7561 .74918 .72** .383* .272* .278*

2. Perceived Quality 3.6543 .83426 .383* .85** .213* .203*

3. Organizational Attractiveness 3.5098 .82465 .272* .213* .82** .665*

4. Intention to Apply 3.5602 .92788 .278* .203* .665* .81**

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

**Cronbach α reliability coefficients reported in the diagonal, N =457

Organizational attractiveness is found to have a high correlation with intention to

apply (r=.665). The reliability coefficients have been reported in the diagonals for

each construct. Cronbach Alpha values are all above 0.7 (Nunally 1978) indicating

good reliability of the scales.

5.1.2.2 Manipulation Checks (Study 1)

Manipulation checks help in determining whether the participants have clearly

perceived the manipulations in the manner intended by the researchers (Perdue and

Summers 1986). Three separate manipulation checks were conducted with the overall

sample to verify the following three premises- to check the perceived difference in

intention to apply for the audio-visual-preview and text preview; to check the

perceived difference in intention to apply for positive and realistic testimonial and to

check the perceived difference in intention to apply for company-dependent and

company neutral testimonial sources

88

Table 5: Results from Manipulation Check 1 [Study 1]

Descriptive Statistics t-test for equality of means

Manipulation

(Preview-mode)

N

(Sample

Size)

Mean SD Std.

Error

Variance t value Df Sig.

(2 tailed)

Text 238 3.193 1.14 .07397 Equal variance

Assumed

Equal variance not

assumed

-1.609

-1.633

456

448

.008

.003

Audio-visual 219 3.984 1.02 .07464



Manipulation

(Testimonial-

type)

N

(Sample

Size)

Mean SD Std.

Error


(2 tailed)

Positive 234 3.143 .8693 -.07102 Equal variance

Assumed

Equal variance not

assumed

-.883

-.895

456

448

.038

.031

Realistic 223 3.813 .8607 -.07102

The mean intention to apply for text preview is found to be 3.193 and that for audio-

visual previews is 3.984, and the mean difference is significant at 5 % level of

significance (refer to table 5). This indicates that the manipulation of preview-mode

89

was comprehended properly by the respondents. The mean intention to apply for

positive testimonial is found to be 3.143 and that for audio-visual previews is 3.813,

and the mean difference is significant at 5 % level of significance (refer to table 6).

This indicates that the manipulation of testimonial-type was comprehended properly

by the respondents. The mean intention to apply for company dependent testimonial-

source is found to be 3.161 and that for audio-visual previews is 3.867, and the mean

difference is significant at 5 % level of significance (refer to table 7).

Table 7: Results from manipulation check 3 [Study 1]


Manipulation

(Testimonial-

source)

N

(Sample

Size)

Mean SD Std.

Error


(2 tailed)

Company-

dependent

230 3.161 .9587 .0598 Equal variance

Assumed

Equal variance not

assumed

-.958

-1.122

456

455

.016

.002 Company-

neutral

227 3.867 .9211 .0625

This indicates that the manipulation of testimonial-source was comprehended

properly by the respondents. Therefore the results from the manipulation checks

indicated that the respondents have clearly understood the design manipulations

before responding to the survey questionnaire.

90

5.1.3 Phase I Results (Study 1)

The experimental design for phase 1 (study 1) can be represented as under:

Perceived Quality + Perceived Credibility + Organizational Attractiveness + Intention to apply= β0 +

β1 (Preview-mode) + β2 (Testimonial-type) + β3 (Testimonial-source) + β4 (Preview-mode x

Testimonial-type) + β5 (Testimonial-type x Testimonial-source) + β6 (Preview-mode x Testimonial-

source) + β7 (Preview-mode x Testimonial-type x Testimonial-source) + Error

A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted using SPSS 16 with the

dependent variable block including the constructs of perceived credibility, perceived

quality, organizational attractiveness and intention to apply and preview-mode (two

factors-text/ audio-visual), testimonial-type (two factors-positive/ realistic) and

testimonial-source (two factors- company dependent/ company neutral) as fixed

factors. The Levene‘s test for homogeneity of variance was found to be insignificant

(p > .05) in case of each dependent variable which helped in meeting the necessary

assumptions (Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black 1998) to conduct a MANOVA (refer

Table 8).

Table 8: Levene’s Test for Significance for MANOVA [Study1]

Name of variable F df1 df2 Significance

Perceived Quality 1.714 7 449 .104

Perceived Credibility .767 7 449 .615

Organizational Attractiveness .985 7 449 .441

Intention to apply and recommend 4.832 7 449 .089

The results from the MANOVA analysis indicate that the multivariate test of

significance (Wilk‘s Lambda) is significant for preview-mode (p = .001), testimonial-

91

type (p = .001) and testimonial-source (p = .001), and the two-way and three-way

interaction terms all have significant F values. The multivariate tests indicate presence

of significant main and interaction effect of the treatment variables (preview-mode,

testimonial-type and testimonial-source) on the dependent variables. The observed

power for the above variables (greater than 0.8) also indicates strong possibility of

main and interaction effect (Hair et al. 1998). Table 9 shows the effect of treatment

variables on each dependent variable separately.

TABLE 9: Multivariate Test of Significance for Perceived Quality,

Perceived Credibility, Attractiveness and Intention to Apply [Study 1]

Name of Variable Test of

Significance

Value F

Value

Partial Eta

Squared

Observed

Power

Previewmode Wilk‘s Lambda 0.958 4.867* 0.042 0.957

Testimonial type Wilk‘s Lambda 0.911 10.851* 0.089 1.000

Testimonial source Wilk‘s Lambda 0.955 5.255* 0.045 0.970

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type Wilk‘s Lambda 0.959 4.822** 0.041 0.956

Preview-mode X Testimonial-source Wilk‘s Lambda 0.941 6.990* 0.059 0.995

Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Wilk‘s Lambda 0.982 2.042*** 0.018 0.850

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type X

Testimonial-source

Wilk‘s Lambda 0.922 9.476* 0.078 1.000

*p<0.001;**p<0.01; ***p<0.05

The univariate results further indicate that preview-mode does not have any

significant main effect on perceived quality [F (4, 446) = .167, p = .683] and

perceived credibility [F (4, 446) = .082, p = .774]. However, preview-mode is found

to have a significant main effect on organizational attractiveness [F (4, 446) = 7.752,

p = .006, effect size = .02] and intention to apply [F (4, 446) = 18.768, p = .001, effect

size = .043]. Testimonial-type has a main effect only on intention to apply [F (4, 446)

92

= 27.662, p = .001]. Testimonial-source is noticed to have significant main effect on

organizational attractiveness [F (4, 446) = 8.224, p = .004, effect size = .02] and

intention to apply [F (4, 446) = 16.281, p = .001, effect size = .058]. The two-way

interaction effect of preview-mode and testimonial-type is significant only for

organizational attractiveness [F (4, 446) =13.922, p=.001, effect size= .065] and

intention to apply [F (4, 446) = 13.424, p = .001, effect size = .079]. Two-way

interaction between preview-mode and testimonial-source is significant only on

organizational attractiveness [F (4, 446) = 14.028, p = .001, effect size = .06]. As for

the two-way interaction between testimonial-type and testimonial-source, significant

effect is observed for organizational attractiveness [F (4, 446) = 5.620, p = .018, effect

size = .032] and intention to apply [F (4, 446) = 3.196, p = .044, effect size = .037].

The three-way interaction between preview-mode, testimonial-type and testimonial-

source is significant at 99 % confidence interval for perceived quality [F (4, 446) =

8.449, p = .004, effect size = .097], perceived credibility [F (4, 446) = 8.401, p =.004,

effect size = .088] and intention to apply [F (4, 446) = 14.487, p =.001, effect size =

.038] respectively, and at 95 % confidence level for organizational attractiveness [F

(4, 446) = 3.704, p = .045, effect size = .121].

The effect sizes for all variables fall under the range of .03 - .12 which indicates

moderate effect of the treatments on the dependent variables (Kotrlik and Williams

2003). The findings suggest that all four dependent variables are perceived

differently in case of the three-way interaction indicating that websites with different

combinations of preview-mode, testimonial-type and testimonial-source have a

possibility of being differently perceived by job-seekers.

93

Table 10: Univariate Test of Significance for Perceived Quality, Perceived

Credibility, Organizational Attractiveness and Intention to Apply

[Study 1]

Main & Interaction Effects F Value Partial

Eta

Squared

Observed

power

Preview-mode Quality

Preview-mode Credibility

Preview-mode Attractiveness

Preview-modeIntention to apply

0.167

0.082

7.752*

18.768*

0.000

0.000

0.021

0.043

0.069

0.059

0.803

0.991

Testimonial-type Quality

Testimonial-type Credibility Testimonial-type Attractiveness

Testimonial-type Intention to apply

0.248

1.037 0.474

27.662*

0.001

0.002 0.001

0.058

0.079

0.174 0.105

0.999

Testimonial-source Quality

Testimonial-source Credibility Testimonial-source Attractiveness

Testimonial-source Intention to apply

0.034

0.856 8.244*

16.281*

0.000

0.002 0.058

0.035

0.054

0.152 0.817

0.981

Preview-mode X Testimonial-typeQuality

Preview-mode X Testimonial-typeCredibility

Preview-mode X Testimonial-typeAttractiveness

Preview-mode X Testimonial-typeIntention to apply

0.041

0.047

13.922*

13.424*

0.000

0.000

0.065

0.079

0.055

0.055

0.961

0.955

Preview-mode X Testimonial-source Quality

Preview-mode X Testimonial-source Credibility

Preview-mode X Testimonial-source Attractiveness

Preview-mode X Testimonial-source Intention to apply

0.596

2.152

14.028*

0.332

0.001

0.005

0.060

0.001

0.120

0.310

0.962

0.089

Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Quality

Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Credibility

Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Attractiveness

Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Intention to apply

0.529

0.044

5.620**

3.196**

0.001

0.000

0.032

0.037

0.112

0.055

0.757

0.730

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Quality

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Credibility

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Attractiveness

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Intention to

apply

8.449*

8.401*

3.704**

14.487*

0.097

0.088

0.038

0.121

0.827

0.824

0.884

0.967

*p<0.01, **p<0.05

94

5.1.3.1 Profile Plot Analysis

Profile Plot 1. Dependent Variable-Perceived Quality, Treatment Variables-

Preview-mode, Testimonial-type

Figure 11 demonstrates the marginal means of perceived quality, given preview-mode

and testimonial-type as treatment variables.

Figure 11: Profile Plot 1: DV- Perceived Quality; IV- Preview-mode,

Testimonial-type

The profile plot shows that for video-based preview and positive employee

testimonial, perceived quality of website is highest. Perceived quality was lower than

the above case in both the following situations:

a. Text based preview and positive testimonial

b. Video based preview and realistic testimonial.

However, the lowest marginal mean was recorded for the scenario where the preview-

mode is text-based and testimonial-type is realistic.

3.772

3.783

3.733

3.767

Testimonial-type

Estimated Marginal Means of Perceived Quality

95


Preview-mode, Testimonial-source


and testimonial-source as treatment variables.


Testimonial-source

The profile plot shows that for video-based preview and company-dependent source

of employee testimonial, estimated marginal means for perceived quality of website is

highest. Perceived quality is lower than the above case in both the following

situations:

a. Text based preview and company neutral testimonial-source

b. Video based preview and company neutral testimonial-source.

3.738

3.75

3.77

3.81


Testimonial-source

96

The lowest marginal mean was recorded for the scenario where the preview-mode is

text-based and testimonial-type is company-dependent.


Testimonial-type, testimonial-Source

Figure 13 demonstrates the marginal means of perceived quality, given testimonial-

type and testimonial-source as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that for

positive employee testimonial and company-dependent source of employee

testimonial, estimated marginal means for perceived quality of website is highest.

Figure 13: Profile Plot 3: DV- Perceived Quality; IV- Testimonial-type,

Testimonial-source

Perceived quality is lower than the above case in both the following situations:

a. Positive employee testimonial and company neutral testimonial-source

b. Realistic employee testimonial and company neutral testimonial-source.

3.75

3.762

3.737

3.80

Testimonial-source

Testimonial-type


97

However, the lowest marginal mean was recorded for the scenario where the

testimonial is realistic but testimonial-source is company-dependent.

Profile Plot 4. Dependent Variable-Perceived Credibility, Treatment Variables-

Testimonial-type, Preview-mode

Figure 14 demonstrates the marginal means of perceived credibility, given

testimonial-type and preview-mode as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that

for video-based preview and positive employee testimonial, perceived credibility of

website is highest.

Figure 14: Profile Plot 4: DV- Perceived Credibility; IV- Preview-mode,

Testimonial-type

Perceived credibility for text based preview and positive testimonial is lower than the

above case but greater than in both the following situations:

a. Text based preview and realistic testimonial.

b. Video based preview and realistic testimonial

Estimated Marginal Means of Perceived Credibility

Testimonial-type

3.718

3.682

3.634 3.625

98

The difference in marginal mean for the scenario where the preview-mode is audio-

visual and testimonial-type is realistic and the scenario for which preview-mode is

text-based and testimonial-type is realistic is not very large, indicating that both these

combinations have more or less similar influence on perceived credibility.




testimonial-source and preview-mode as treatment variables.


Testimonial-source

The profile plot shows that for text-based preview and company-dependent source of

employee testimonial, estimated marginal means for perceived credibility of website

3.653

3.73

3.69

3.575


Testimonial-source

99

is highest. Perceived credibility is lower than the above case in both the following

situations:

a. Video based preview and company dependent testimonial-source



mode is text-based and testimonial-source is company-neutral.


Testimonial-type, Testimonial-source


testimonial-type and testimonial-source as treatment variables.

Figure 16: Profile Plot 6: DV- Perceived Credibility; IV-Testimonial-type,

Testimonial-source

The profile plot shows that for positive employee testimonial and company-dependent

source of employee testimonial, estimated marginal means for perceived credibility of

3.67

3.72

3.59

3.68

Testimonial-source

Testimonial-type


100

website is highest. Perceived credibility is lower than the above case in both the

following situations:


b. Realistic employee testimonial and company dependent testimonial-source.


testimonial is realistic but testimonial-source is company-neutral.

Profile Plot 7. Dependent Variable- Organizational Attractiveness, Treatment

Variables- Testimonial-type, Preview-mode

Figure 17 demonstrates the marginal means of organizational attractiveness, given

preview-mode and testimonial-type as treatment variables.

Figure 17: Profile Plot 7: DV- Organizational Attractiveness; IV-Testimonial-

type, Preview-mode

3.48

3.69

3.223

3.55

Testimonial-type

Estimated Marginal Means of Organizational Attractiveness

101


testimonial, organizational attractiveness is highest. Organizational attractiveness is

lower than the above case in both the following situations:

a. Text based preview and realistic testimonial


However, the lowest marginal mean is recorded for the scenario where the preview-

mode is text-based and testimonial-type is positive.


Variables- Preview-mode, Testimonial-source


preview-mode and testimonial-source as treatment variables.

Figure 18: Profile Plot 8: DV- Organizational Attractiveness; IV-Preview-mode,

Testimonial-source

The profile plot shows that the combinations video-based preview and company-

dependent source of employee testimonial, and text-based preview and company

neutral source of testimonial, have same level of estimated marginal means for

3.61

3.15

3.61

3.58

Testimonial-source Estimated Marginal Means of Organizational Attractiveness

102

organizational attractiveness, and it is also highest for the above two combinations.

Attractiveness is lower than the above cases in the situation where preview is video

based and testimonial-source is company neutral. However, the lowest marginal mean

was recorded for the scenario where the preview-mode is text-based but testimonial-

source is company-dependent.


Variables- Testimonial-type, Testimonial-source


testimonial-type and preview-mode as treatment variables.


type, Testimonial-source

The profile plot shows that for positive employee testimonial and company-neutral

source of employee testimonial, estimated marginal means for organizational

attractiveness of website is highest. Attractiveness is lower than the above case in

both the following situations:

3.48

3.52

3.65

3.28

Testimonial-type

Testimonial-source


103

a. Realistic employee testimonial and company neutral testimonial-source




Profile Plot 10. Dependent Variable-Intention to Apply, Treatment Variables-


Figure 20 demonstrates the marginal means of intention to apply, given testimonial-

type and preview-mode as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that for realistic

employee testimonial and audio-visual preview, estimated marginal means for

intention to apply is highest.

Figure 20: Profile Plot 10: DV- Intention to Apply; IV-Testimonial-type,

Preview-mode

Intention to apply is lower than the above case in both the following situations:

a. Realistic employee testimonial and text based preview

b. Positive employee testimonial and audio-visual preview.

3.81

3.86 3.83

3.23

Testimonial-type

Estimated Marginal Means of Intention to apply

104


testimonial is positive and corporate preview is text based.

Profile Plot 11. Dependent Variable- Intention to Apply, Treatment Variables-



source and preview-mode as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that for

audio-visual previews and company-neutral source of employee testimonial,

estimated marginal means for intention to apply is highest.

Figure 21: Profile Plot 11: DV- Intention to Apply; IV-Preview-mode,

Testimonial-source

Intention to apply is lower than the above case and roughly same in both the


a. Text preview and company neutral testimonial-source

b. Video preview and company dependent testimonial-source.

3.77

4.00

3.76

3.40

Testimonial-source


105

However, the lowest marginal mean was recorded for the scenario where the preview

is text based but testimonial-source is company-dependent.


Testimonial-Type, Testimonial-Source



realistic employee testimonial and company-neutral source of employee testimonial,



Testimonial-source




3.845

3.35

4.05

3.772

Testimonial-type

Testimonial-source


106


testimonial is positive but testimonial-source is company-dependent.

Profile Plot 13. Dependent Variable- Perceived Quality, Treatment Variables-

Preview-mode, Testimonial-type, Testimonial-source (Company-dependent)


type, preview-mode as treatment variables when testimonial-source is company

dependent.


Testimonial-type at Testimonial-source (Company-dependent)

The profile plot shows that for positive employee testimonial and text preview, and

for realistic testimonial and video preview, estimated marginal means for perceived

quality of website is approximately same. Perceived quality is lower than the above

3.75

3.853 3.852

3.62

Testimonial-type


At Testimonial-source =

107

case in the situation where the testimonial is positively framed and the corporate

preview is video based. However, the lowest marginal mean was recorded for the

scenario where the testimonial is realistic but firm‘s preview is given in plain text,

especially since the testimonial is posted through a company dependent channel.

Profile Plot 14. Dependent variable- Perceived Quality, Treatment Variables-

Preview-mode, Testimonial-type, Testimonial-source (Company-neutral)


Testimonial-type at Testimonial-source (Company-neutral)


type, preview-mode as treatment variables when testimonial-source is company

neutral. The profile plot shows that for realistic employee testimonial and text

preview, estimated marginal means for perceived quality of website is highest.

Perceived quality is lower than the above case in the situation where the testimonial is

positively framed and the corporate preview is video based. However, the lowest

marginal means are recorded for the scenarios where the testimonial is positive but

3.803

3.85

3.67 3.66

Testimonial-type


At Testimonial-source=

108

firm‘s preview is given in plain text, and for realistic testimonial and video preview,

the estimated marginal means for these two cases being more or less similar.

Profile Plot 15. Dependent Variable- Perceived Credibility, Treatment Variables-





testimonial-type, preview-mode as treatment variables when testimonial-source is

company dependent. The profile plot shows that for positive employee testimonial

and text preview, estimated marginal means for perceived credibility of website is

highest. Perceived credibility is lower than the above case in case of the situation

where there is realistic employee testimonial and video preview. For realistic

3.60

3.73

3.62

3.85 Testimonial-type

Estimated Marginal Means of Perceived credibility

At Testimonial-source

109

employee testimonial and text based preview, estimated marginal means is less than

the above two conditions, and it is less than the combination where the testimonial is

realistic and corporate preview is video-based. However, the lowest marginal mean

was recorded for the scenario where the testimonial is positive but preview is video

based.






testimonial-type, preview-mode as treatment variables when testimonial-source is

company neutral. The profile plot shows that for positive employee testimonial and

audio-visual preview, estimated marginal means for perceived quality of website is

highest. Perceived credibility is lower than the above case in the situation where the

testimonial is realistically framed but the corporate preview is text based when the

testimonial is displayed in a company neutral platform. However, the lowest marginal

3.85

3.55

3.65

3.53

Testimonial-type


At Testimonial-source = Company Neutral

110

means are recorded for the scenarios where the testimonial is positive but firm‘s

preview is given in plain text, and for realistic testimonial and video preview, the

estimated marginal means for these two cases being more or less similar.

Profile Plot 17. Dependent Variable-Organizational Attractiveness, Treatment

Variables- Preview-mode, Testimonial-type, Testimonial-source (Company-

dependent)


testimonial-type and preview-mode as treatment variables when testimonial-source is

company dependent.

Figure 27: Profile Plot 17: DV- Organizational Attractiveness; IV- Preview-

mode, Testimonial-type at Testimonial-source (Company-dependent)

The profile plot shows that for positive employee testimonial and audio-visual

corporate preview, estimated marginal means for organizational attractiveness is

highest. Organizational attractiveness is lower than the above case in both the


3.50 3.45

3.70

2.85

Testimonial-type



111

a. Realistic employee testimonial and text-based preview

b. Realistic employee testimonial and audiovisual preview


testimonial is positive and corporate preview is plain text based.

Profile Plot 18. Dependent variable- Organizational Attractiveness, Treatment

variables- Preview-Mode, Testimonial-Type, Testimonial-Source (Company-

neutral)


mode, Testimonial-type at Testimonial-source (Company-neutral)


testimonial-type and preview-mode as treatment variables when testimonial-source is

company neutral. The profile plot shows that for positive employee testimonial and

audio-visual corporate preview, estimated marginal means for organizational

attractiveness is highest. Organizational attractiveness is lower than the above case

and is marginally equal in both the following situations:

3.67

3.61

3.62

3.44

Testimonial-type



112

a. Positive employee testimonial and text based corporate preview

b. Realistic employee testimonial and text based corporate preview.


testimonial is realistic but corporate preview is video based.



Figure 29: Profile Plot 19: Dependent Variable-Intention to Apply, Treatment


dependent)


type and preview-mode as treatment variables when testimonial-source is company

dependent. The profile plot shows that for realistic employee testimonial and textual

corporate preview, estimated marginal means for intention to apply is highest.

Intention to apply is lower than the above case and marginally equal in both the


3.73

3.74 3.86

2.85

Testimonial-type

Estimated Marginal Means of intention to apply


113

a. Realistic employee testimonial and audio-visual preview

b. Positive employee testimonial and audio-visual preview


testimonial is positive but preview is text based.




Variables- Preview-mode and Testimonial-type at Testimonial-source

(Company-neutral)


type and preview-mode as treatment variables when testimonial-source is company

neutral. The profile plot shows that for realistic employee testimonial and video based

corporate preview, estimated marginal means for intention to apply is highest.

Intention to apply is lower than the above case and equal in both the following

situations:



4.15

3.86 3.86

3.63

Testimonial-type



114

5.1.4 Phase II Results (Study 1)

The experimental design for phase II (study 1) can be represented as under:

Organizational Attractiveness + Intention to apply= β0 + β1 (Preview-mode) + β2 (Testimonial-type) +

β3 (Testimonial-source) + β4 (Preview-mode x Testimonial-type) + β5 (Testimonial-type x

Testimonial-source) + β6 (Preview-mode x Testimonial-source) + β7 (Preview-mode x Testimonial-

type x Testimonial-source) + β8 (Perceived Quality) + β9 (Perceived Quality) + Error

A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted using SPSS 16

with the dependent variable block including the constructs of organizational

attractiveness and intention to apply; perceived credibility and perceived quality as

covariates and preview-mode (two factors-text/ audio-visual), testimonial-type (two

factors-positive/ realistic) and testimonial-source (two factors- company dependent/

company neutral) as fixed factors. The Levene‘s test for homogeneity of variance was

found to be insignificant (p > .05) in case of each dependent variable which helped in

meeting the necessary assumptions to conduct a MANCOVA (refer Table 11).

Table 11: Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances MANCOVA

(Study 1)

Name of Variable F df1 df2 Significance

Organizational Attractiveness 1.715 7 449 .103

Intention to Apply 4.221 7 449 .074

The results from the MANCOVA analysis indicate that the multivariate test of

significance (Wilk‘s Lambda) is significant at 95 % confidence level and preview-

mode, testimonial-type and testimonial-source, as well as the two-way and three-way

interaction terms all have significant F values.

115

TABLE 12: Multivariate Test of Significance for Organizational

Attractiveness and Intention to Apply [Study 1]


Significance

Value F Value Sig. Partial

Eta

Squared

Observed

Power

Perceived Quality Wilk‘s

Lambda .948 12.165 .000 .052 .995

Perceived Credibility Wilk‘s

Lambda .945 13.091 .000 .055 .997

Preview-mode Wilk‘s

Lambda .959 9.637 .000 .041 .981

Testimonial-type Wilk‘s

Lambda .913 21.130 .000 .087 1.000

Testimonial-source Wilk‘s

Lambda .957 10.049 .000 .043 .985

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type Wilk‘s

Lambda .959 9.570 .000 .041 .981

Preview-mode X Testimonial-source Wilk‘s

Lambda .950 11.789 .000 .050 .994

Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Wilk‘s

Lambda .984 3.680 .026 .026 .876


Testimonial-source

Wilk‘s

Lambda .947 12.527 .000 .053 .996

The multivariate tests indicate presence of significant main and interaction effect of

the treatment variables (preview-mode, testimonial-type and testimonial-source) on

the dependent variables. The observed power for the above variables (greater than

0.8) also indicates strong possibility of main and interaction effect (Hair et al. 1998).

Table 13 shows the effect of treatment variables on each dependent variable

separately. The univariate results indicate that perceived website quality has a

significant main effect on organizational attractiveness [F (2, 446) = 22.776, p = .001,

effect size = .098] and intention to apply [F (2, 446) = 15.426, p = .001, effect size =

.073] for the jobseekers.

116

TABLE 13: Univariate Test of Significance for Organizational Attractiveness

and Intention to Apply [Study 1]


Eta

Squared

Observed

power

Perceived Quality Attractiveness Perceived Quality Intention to apply

22.776* 15.426*

.098

.073 .997 .975

Perceived Credibility Attractiveness

Perceived Credibility Intention to apply

26.179*

11.104*

.095

.044

.999

.914


Preview-mode Intention to apply

8.049**

19.283*

.058

.081

.808

.992

Testimonial-type Attractiveness


1.276

33.137*

.003

.069

.204

1.000

Testimonial-source Attractiveness

Testimonial-sourceIntention to apply

11.483*

19.379*

.045

.112

.922

.993

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type Attractiveness

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type Intention to apply

16.225*

14.653*

.085

.101

.980

.969



17.862*

.480

.128

.001

.988

.106



7.202*

3.898**

.056

.033

.864

.804



apply

12.224*

24.794*

.057

.143

.937

.999

*p<0.01, **p<0.05

Perceived credibility also has a significant main effect on organizational attractiveness

[F (2, 446) = 26.179, p =.001, effect size = .095] and intention to apply [F (2, 446) =

11.104, p =.001, effect size = .044]. It is also observed that preview-mode exerts a

notable main effect on organizational attractiveness [F (2, 446) = 8.049, p = .005,

effect size = .058] and intention to apply [F (2, 446) = 19.283, p = .001, effect size =

.081). Testimonial-type has a main effect only on intention to apply [F (2, 446) =

33.137, p = .001, effect size = .069), but not on organizational attractiveness (p =

117

.259). Testimonial-source is noticed to have significant main effect on organizational

attractiveness [F (2, 446) = 11.483, p = .001, effect size = .045] and intention to apply

[F (2, 446) = 19.379, p = .001, effect size = .112].

The two-way interaction effect of preview-mode and testimonial-type is significant

for organizational attractiveness [F (2, 446) = 16.225, p = .001, effect size = .085] and

intention to apply [F (2, 446) = 14.653, p = .001, effect size= .101]. Two-way

interaction between preview-mode and testimonial-source is significant only on

organizational attractiveness [F (2, 446) = 17.862, p = .001, effect size = .128]. As for

the two-way interaction between testimonial-type and testimonial-source, significant

effect is observed for organizational attractiveness [F (2, 446) = 7.202, p = .008, effect

size = .056] and intention to apply [F (2, 446) = 3.898, p = .049, effect size = .033],

albeit at higher confidence level.


source is also observed to be significant for organizational attractiveness [F (2, 446) =

12.224, p = .001, effect size= .057] and intention to apply [F (2, 446) = 24.794, p =

.001, effect size = .143] respectively. The effect sizes (partial eta squared) for all

significant effects range between .03 - .15 which indicates small to moderate effect of

the treatments on the dependent variables (Kotrlik and Williams 2003). The findings

suggest that perceptions regarding attractiveness of an organization as a potential

employer as well as job aspirant‘s intention to apply for any vacancy in the firm are

perceived differently depending on the main effects of perceived quality, perceived

credibility, preview-mode and testimonial-source. Testimonial-type accounts for only

the difference in perception towards intention to apply. Two-way interactions are

significant for combination of treatments preview-mode and testimonial-type, and for

combinations of testimonial-type and testimonial-source. The three-way interaction is

118

also significant on job-seekers‘ perception regarding organizational attraction and

intention to apply. However, a combination of preview-mode and testimonial-source

is not found to be significant for influencing intention to apply. This combination is

found to trigger only difference in perception towards attractiveness of a firm. This

indicates that websites with different combinations of preview-mode, testimonial-type

and testimonial-source have a possibility of being differently perceived by job-seekers

while seeking job-related information through internet compared to websites with

either a single treatment or a combination of any two treatments.





preview-mode and testimonial-type as treatment variables.


type, Preview-mode

3.23

3.47

3.55

3.67

Estimated Marginal Means for Organizational Attractiveness

Testimonial-type

119


testimonial, perceived quality of website is highest. Organizational attractiveness is




However, the lowest marginal mean is recorded for the scenario where the preview-

mode is in plain text form and testimonial is positively positioned.




preview-mode and testimonial-source as treatment variables.


Testimonial-source

3.15

3.53

3.62 3.60


Testimonial-source

120

The profile plot shows that for text-based preview and company-independent source

of employee testimonial, estimated marginal means for perceived quality of website is

highest. Attractiveness is lower than the above case in both the following situations:

a. Video based preview and company neutral testimonial-source

b. Video based preview and company dependent testimonial-source.

Of all the treatment conditions, the lowest marginal mean was recorded for the

scenario where the preview-mode is text-based but testimonial-source is company-

dependent.




testimonial-type and testimonial-source as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that

for positive employee testimonial and company-independent source of employee

testimonial, estimated marginal means for perceived attractiveness of the firm is highest.



3.25

3.50

3.53 3.63


Testimonial-type

Testimonial-source

121

Organizational attractiveness is lower than the above case in both the following

situations:


b. Positive employee testimonial and company dependent testimonial-source.

However, the lowest marginal mean was recorded for the scenario where the testimonial

is positive but testimonial-source is company-dependent.



Figure 34 demonstrates the marginal means of Intention to apply, given testimonial-type

and preview-mode as treatment variables.


Preview-mode

The profile plot shows that for positive employee testimonial and company-dependent

source of employee testimonial, estimated marginal means for intention to apply is

highest. Intention to apply is lower than the above case in both the following situations:

3.80

3.22

3.90

3.93

Estimated Marginal Means for Intention to apply

Testimonial-type

122







Figure 35 demonstrates the marginal means of intention to apply, given preview-mode

and testimonial-source as treatment variables.

Figure 35: Profile Plot 25: DV- Intention to Apply; IV-Preview-mode,

Testimonial-source

The profile plot shows that for video-based preview and company-dependent source

of employee testimonial, estimated marginal means for intention to apply is highest.

Intention to apply for job is lower than the above case in both the following situations:



3.72

3.40

3.74

4.06


Testimonial-source

123


mode is text-based but testimonial-source is company-dependent.




type and testimonial-source as treatment variables.


Testimonial-source

The profile plot shows that for realistic employee testimonial and company-neutral

source of employee testimonial, estimated marginal means for intention to apply is

highest. Intention to apply is lower than the above case in both the following

situations:

a. Realistic employee testimonial and company dependent testimonial-source

b. Positive employee testimonial and company neutral testimonial-source.

3.84

3.31

3.76

4.03

Estimated Marginal Means for Intention to apply Testimonial-source

Testimonial-type

124





dependent)


testimonial-type, preview-mode and testimonial-source (company-dependent) as

treatment variables.



2.77

3.48 3.50

3.74


Testimonial-type At testimonial-source

125

The profile plot shows that, when positive employee testimonials are presented via

company-dependent sources, along with audio-visual corporate previews, estimated

marginal mean for organizational attractiveness is highest. In case of realistic

testimonials, whether presented through company dependent channels or whether the

preview-mode is text or video based does not create any significant difference in

attractiveness perception. It is observed that, if positive testimonials are to be

propagated through company-dependent channels, in such case corporate previews

should not be presented in text based mode, since it significantly lowers attraction of

the employer.


Variables- Preview-mode, Testimonial-type, Testimonial-source (Company-neutral)


testimonial-type, preview-mode and testimonial-source (company-neutral) as




3.47

3.58

3.62

3.67



126


company-neutral sources, along with text based corporate previews, estimated

marginal mean for organizational attractiveness is highest. Perception of

attractiveness is slightly less if the same is provided with audio-visual corporate

previews. It is further observed that, if realistic testimonials are to be propagated

through company-neutral channels, in such case corporate previews should not be

presented in audio-visual based mode, since it significantly lowers attraction of the

employer.




type, preview-mode and testimonial-source (company-dependent) as treatment

variables.

Figure 39: Profile Plot 29: DV- Intention to Apply; IV- Preview-mode,


2.82

3.77

3.80 3.97

Testimonial-type


At testimonial-source = Company Dependent

127

The profile plot shows that, when realistic employee testimonials are presented via

company-dependent sources, along with text-based corporate previews, estimated

marginal mean for intention to apply is highest.

It is further observed that, if positive testimonials are to be propagated through

company-dependent channels, in such case corporate previews should not be

presented in text based mode, since it significantly lowers attraction of the employer.






Figure 40: Profile Plot 30: DV- Intention to Apply; IV- Preview-mode,



company-neutral sources, along with audio-visual corporate previews, estimated

3.83

3.67

4.18

3.85



128


testimonials, whether the preview-mode is text or video based does not create any

significant difference in attractiveness perception. It is further observed that, if

positive testimonials are to be propagated through company-neutral channels, in such

case corporate previews should not be presented in text based mode, since it

significantly lowers attraction of the employer.

129

5.1.5 Phase III Results (Study 1)

The experimental design for phase 3 can be represented as under:

Intention to apply= β0 + β1 (Preview-mode) + β2 (Testimonial-type) + β3

(Testimonial-source) + β4 (Preview-mode x Testimonial-type) + β5 (Testimonial-type

x Testimonial-source) + β6 (Preview-mode x Testimonial-source) + β7 (Preview-mode

x Testimonial-type x Testimonial-source) + β8 (Perceived Quality) + β9 (Perceived

Quality) + β10 (Organizational Attractiveness) + Error

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted using SPSS 16 with the dependent

variable intention to apply, organizational attractiveness, perceived credibility and

perceived quality as covariates and preview-mode (two factors-text/ audio-visual),

testimonial-type (two factors-positive/ realistic) and testimonial-source (two factors-

company dependent/ company neutral) as fixed factors.

The results revealed that perceived quality [F (1, 446) = 1.528, p > .10] and perceived

credibility [F (1, 446) = .058, p > .10] are not significant covariates of intention to

apply, while organizational attractiveness [F (1, 446 = 268.439, p < .001, effect size =

.376] is significant predictor of intention to apply. The treatments also show

significant main effect with testimonial-type showing a moderate effect size (.084).

The two way interaction between preview-mode and type of testimonial is not

significant [F (1, 446) = 2.848, p >.05] and that between preview-mode and

testimonial-source is significant only at 95 % confidence level [F (1, 446) = 5.535, p

<.05, effect size = .012].

130

TABLE 14: Test of Significance for Dependent Variable Intention to Apply

[Study 1]

Predictor variable F Value Sig. Partial Eta

Squared

Observed

Power

Perceived Quality 1.528 .217 .003 .234

Perceived Credibility .058 .810 .000 .057

Organizational Attraction 268.439 .001 .376 1.000

Preview-mode 11.044 .001 .044 .612

Testimonial-type 40.870 .001 .084 1.000

Testimonial-source 8.423 .004 .02 .525

Previewmode X Testimonial-type 2.848 .092 .006 .391

Previewmode X Testimonial-source 5.535 .019 .012 .651

Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source .171 .680 .000 .070

Previewmode X Testimonial-type X

Testimonial-source

12.515 .001 .177 1.000

The two way interaction between testimonial-type and testimonial-source [F (1, 446)

= .409, p > .05] is not significant at 95 % confidence level. At the same time, it is

observed that the three way interaction between preview-mode, testimonial-type and

testimonial-source [F (1, 446) = 12.515, p < .001, effect size = .177] has significant

131

effect on intention to apply. Therefore, the results suggest that organizational

attractiveness is a significant covariate of job-seekers‘ intention to apply for jobs. The

treatments have significant main effects on intention to apply though the three way

interaction between the treatment variable sis is considerably more significant with a

better effect size.





type and preview-mode as treatment variables.


Preview-mode

The profile plot shows that for realistic employee testimonial and audio-visual corporate

preview, estimated marginal means for intention to apply is highest. Intention to apply is


3.73

3.45

3.87

3.97

Estimated marginal means of intention to apply Testimonial-type

132


b. Positive employee testimonial and video based preview.


testimonial is positive and preview is text-based.

Profile Plot 32. Dependent Variables-Intention to Apply, Treatment Variables-



source and preview-mode as treatment variables.

Figure 42: Profile Plot 32: DV- Intention to Apply; IV-Testimonial-source,

Preview-mode

The profile plot shows that for audio-visual preview and company-independent source

of employee testimonial, estimated marginal means for intention to apply is highest.

Intention to apply is lower than the above case and approximately same in both the


a. text based preview and company neutral testimonial-source

3.69 3.66

3.69

4.00

Estimated marginal means of intention to apply Testimonial-source

133

b. video based preview and company dependent testimonial-source.

Profile Plot 33: Dependent Variable- Intention to Apply; Treatment Variables-



type and preview-mode as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that for positive

employee testimonial and company-dependent source of employee testimonial,



Testimonial-source



b. Realistic employee testimonial and company neutral testimonial-source



4.00

3.67

3.85

3.50

Estimated marginal means of intention to apply

Testimonial-source

Testimonial-type

134


Testimonial-type, Preview-mode at Testimonial-source (Company-dependent)




Preview-mode at Testimonial-source (Company-dependent)

The profile plot shows that for realistic employee testimonial and text based preview,

estimated marginal means for intention to apply is highest. Intention to apply is lower

than the above case in both the following situations:

a. Realistic employee testimonial and video preview

b. Positive employee testimonial and video preview


testimonial is positive and preview is text based when the testimonial source is

company dependent.

3.68

3.23

3.73

3.97

Testimonial-type


At Testimonial-source=company dependent

135


Testimonial-type, Preview-mode at Testimonial-source (Company-neutral)



Figure 45: Profile Plot 35: DV- Intention to Apply; IV-Testimonial-type, Preview-

mode at Testimonial-source (Company-neutral)

The profile plot shows that for realistic employee testimonial and video preview,

estimated marginal means for intention to apply is highest when employee

testimonials are advertised through company neutral source. Intention to apply is


a. Realistic employee testimonial and text preview

b. Positive employee testimonial and video preview.

3.77

3.57

4.22

3.80


At Testimonial-source=company-neutral Testimonial-type

136

5.1.6 Phase IV Results (Study 1)

A covariance based structural equation model (SEM) is estimated to assess the

hypothesized relationship. The fit of the structural model is acceptable, with χ2

(52)=

238.498 (p < .01), goodness of fit index (GFI)= .958, comparative fit index (CFI)=

.931, incremental fit index (IFI)= .924 and root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA)= .063. CMIN/df is calculated to be 4.587. Based on these results, the

measurement model indicates an acceptable model fit of the data (Hair et al., 1998).

Consistent with the different cut-off criteria provided in the literature (Joreskog, 1993;

Hu and Bentler 1999), it is concluded that the hypothesized causal model is within the

acceptable range of all the fit statistics.

Please refer to Table 15 for structural path model‘s estimates and a summary of the

results of the hypothesis tests. In H10a it is proposed that perceived quality positively

affects job-seekers‘ perception of organizational attraction (β1a = .197, p = .014) and

in H10b it is proposed that perceived quality positively affects their intention to apply

(β2a = .155, p = .024). Both these hypotheses receive support at 95 % confidence

interval. Our next two hypotheses (H11a and H11b) are not supported because perceived

credibility is not found to have a positive effect on organizational attractiveness (β2a =

-.024, p = .795) and intention to apply (β2b = .046, p = .318). The hypotheses H4a, H4b

and H4c also do not get any support as preview-mode, testimonial-type and

testimonial-source are found to have no significant effect on organizational

attractiveness (p > .05). Organizational attractiveness on the other hand significantly

influences intention to apply (β6 = .577, p = .001), providing support for H14. In order

to evaluate whether the impact of perceived quality on job-seekers‘ intention to apply

is fully mediated by organizational attractiveness, a path from perceived quality to

137

intention to apply is created and the chi-square difference between the two models is

evaluated.

Table 15: Moderating Effect of Preview-mode, Testimonial-type and

Testimonial-source and Mediating Effect of Organizational Attractiveness

[Study 1]

Hypothesized Path Standardized path coefficients

Hypothesis β S.E. C.R.

Perceived Quality → Attractiveness

H 10a .197** .092 2.467

Perceived Credibility→ Attractiveness

H11a -.024 -.259 .795

Preview-mode →Attractiveness

H4a -.034 -.017 -.389

Testimonial-type → Attractiveness

H4b -.027 .087 .563

Testimonial-source → Attractiveness

H4c .038 .087 .851

Perceived Quality→ Intention to Apply

H10b .155** .045 1.217

Perceived Credibility → Intention to apply

H11b .046 .046 .999

Attractiveness → Intention to Apply H14 .577* .039 14.384

MOD1 (Quality*Preview-mode) Attractiveness H19a .048 .087 .862

MOD2 (Quality*Testimonial-type)Attractiveness H19b .035 .087 .563

MOD3 (Quality*Testimonial-source)Attractiveness H19c -.015 .086 -.262

MOD4 (Credibility*Preview-mode)Attractiveness H20a .058 .085 1.007

MOD5 (Credibility*Testimonial-type)Attractiveness H20b .135** .077 2.425

MOD6 (Credibility*Testimonial-source)Attractiveness H20c .092** .079 1.559

Fit Statistics

χ2 (df) 238.498 (52)

p .000

CMIN/df 4.587

GFI .958

CFI .931

IFI .924

RMSEA .063

**p<.05; *p<.01

Notes: β represents standardized path coefficient

138

Figure 46: Structural Model with Path Coefficients for Study 1

It is observed that the independent variable (perceived quality) has significant

relationship (βc =.155, p = .001, S.E. = .045) with the dependent variable intention to

apply and the mediating variable organizational attractiveness (βa = .197, p = .001,

S.E.a = .092); and the mediating variable also significantly predicts the dependent

variable (βb = .577, p = .001, S.E.b = .039). These results show that the hypothesized

model satisfy the basic conditions for mediation as proposed by Barron and Kenny

MOD 3 MOD 2

Perceived

Credibility

Organizational

Attractiveness

Intention to

Apply

Perceived

Quality

MOD 1

Preview-

mode

Testimonial-

type

Testimonial-

source

MOD 4 MOD 5 MOD 6

.197** .155**

. 577*

.046 -.024

-.034

-.027

.038

.048

.035

-.015

.058

.135**

.122**

139

(1986). Afterwards, a Sobel‘s test (Sobel, 1982) was carried out to test the nature of

mediation. To calculate Sobel‘s test statistic, the following formula (Sobel, 1982) was used:

Where,

a= regression coefficient for the relationship between the independent variable and the

mediator

b= the regression coefficient for the relationship between the mediator and the dependent

variable

SEa = the standard error of the relationship between the independent variable and the

mediator and

SEb = the standard error of the relationship between the mediator variable and the

dependent variable

Sobel‘s test for significance = 2.11922306 (> 1.96), with one-tailed probability=

.01703581**, two-tailed probability= .03407162**. The test statistic was significant

at 95 % level of significance, indicating partial mediating effect (Preacher and Hayes

2004) of organizational attractiveness on the relationship between perceived quality

and intention to apply. Thus we received partial support for our hypothesis 21 for

study 1.

Next, in order to evaluate whether the impact of perceived credibility on job-seekers‘

intention to apply is fully mediated by organizational attractiveness, a path from

perceived credibility to intention to apply is created and the chi-square difference

between the two models is evaluated. It is observed that the independent variable

(perceived credibility) has no significant relationship with the dependent variable

140

(intention to apply) and the mediating variable (organizational attractiveness); though

the mediating variable significantly predicts the dependent variable. These results

show that the hypothesized model does not mediate the relationship between

perceived quality and intention to apply (Barron and Kenny). Therefore, H 22 for

study 1 received no support.

In order to test for moderating effect of preview-mode, testimonial-type and

testimonial-source on the relationship between perceived quality and firm

attractiveness, interaction terms are created for perceived quality with respect to

preview-mode, testimonial-type and testimonial-source (MOD1, MOD2 and MOD3).

Similarly, interaction terms are created to test the moderating impact of -mode,

testimonial-type and testimonial-source on the relationship between perceived

credibility and organizational attractiveness (MOD4, MOD5 and MOD6). As has

been observed, perceived quality has significant main effect on organizational

attractiveness. But no significant interaction effect is observed with respect to the

moderating variables created by perceived quality and the treatment variables. Hence

none of H19a, H19b and H19c received any support for study 1.

As for moderating impact of preview-mode, testimonial-type and testimonial-source

on the relationship between perceived credibility and organizational attractiveness, it

is observed that preview-mode (p = .314) does not demonstrate any significant

moderating effect on the relation between perceived credibility and firm attraction.

However, testimonial-type (p = .015) and testimonial-source (p = .019) are observed

to have significant moderating impact on the credibility-firm attraction relationship.

At the same time, perceived credibility does not have any main effect on

organizational attractiveness (p = .318). Hence H20a is not supported but H20b and H20c

receive complete support.

141

5.1.7 Phase V Results (Study 1): Post – Hoc Test Using Scheffe’s Procedure

Post-hoc tests were conducted with preview-mode (text/ audio-visual), testimonial-

type (positive/ realistic) and testimonial-source (company-dependent/ company-

neutral) on intention to apply, using Scheffe‘s test (Klockars and Hancock 2000). The

findings gave indications that in terms of intention to apply, perceptions are different

for those jobseekers in Group A who have viewed the website with treatment

condition 1 (positive employee testimonial, text based preview and company

dependent testimonial source) compared to Groups E, F, G, and H which correspond

to treatment conditions 5, 6, 7 and 8 (mean differences significant at p < .05).

Perceptions are different for those jobseekers in Group B who have viewed the

website with treatment condition 2 (realistic employee testimonial, text based preview

and company-dependent testimonial source) compared to Groups F, G, and H which

correspond to treatment conditions 6, 7 and 8 (MDs significant at p < .05). However,

perceptions are not significantly different when job-seekers under Groups A, C, D and

E are compared with those in Group B (mean difference significant at p < .05). With

respect to Group C (treatment 3), Groups E, F, G and H contributed to different

perception formation for intention to apply at 95 % confidence level but Groups A, B

and D are not able to create any difference in jobseekers‘ intention to apply at 95 %

confidence level. As for those exposed to website corresponding to treatment 4 in

Group D, perception of applying for job is different compared to those who viewed

treatments 6, 7 and 8 in Groups F, G and H (MD significant at p < .05). Intention to

apply for Group E job-seekers is markedly different from that for job-seekers in

Group G and Group H at 95 % confidence level, and that for Group F job-seekers is

significantly different from Groups A, C and D at 95 % confidence level.

142

Table 16: Post-hoc Analysis Using Scheffe’s Procedure [Study 1]

Referent group (I) Comparison group (J) Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Significance

Group A Group B .23385 .10701 .687

Group C .16436 .09771 .900

Group D .00617 .10251 1.000

Group E .10403** .09855 .033

Group F .00239* .11739 .000

Group G .03812* .12008 .000

Group H .17162** .11739 .011

Group B Group A -.23385 .10701 .687

Group C -.06949 .09372 .999

Group D -.22768 .09872 .621

Group E -.12982 .09460 .966

Group F -.23146* .11409 .006

Group G -.19573* .11686 .002

Group H -.06223* .11409 .000

Group C Group A -.16436 .09771 .900

Group B .06949 .09372 .999

Group D -.15819 .08855 .866

Group E -.06033* .08394 .001

Group F -.16197** .10542 .037

Group G -.12625* .10841 .007

143

Group H .00726* .10542 .000

Group D Group A -.00617 .10251 1.000

Group B .22768 .09872 .621

Group C .15819 .08855 .866

Group E .09786 .08948 .991

Group F -.00378* .10988 .000

Group G .03194* .11275 .000

Group H .16545** .10988 .043

Group E Group A -.10403 .09855 .993

Group B .12982 .09460 .966

Group C .06033 .08394 .999

Group D -.09786 .08948 .991

Group F -.10164 .10620 .996

Group G -.06592* .10917 .000

Group H .06759* .10620 .000

Group F Group A -.00239* .11739 .000

Group B .23146*** .11409 .066

Group C .16197** .10542 .037

Group D .00378* .10988 .000

Group E .10164 .10620 .996

Group G .03573 .12644 1.000

Group H .16923*** .12388 .067

Group G Group A -.03812* .12008 .000

144

Group B .19573* .11686 .002

Group C .12625 .10841 .987

Group D -.03194* .11275 .000

Group E .06592* .10917 .000

Group F -.03573* .12644 .000

Group H .13350 .12644 .993

Group H Group A -.17162** .11739 .045

Group B .06223* .11409 .000

Group C -.00726* .10542 .000

Group D -.16545** .10988 .043

Group E -.06759* .10620 .000

Group F -.16923** .12388 .067

Group G -.13350 .12644 .093

* p<.01, **p< .05

Group G job-seekers have different intention to apply compared to those in Groups A,

B, D, E and F. Finally, Group H is found to create difference in intention to apply at

95 % confidence level for all other groups except Group G. Observing the mean

differences for intention to apply, it may be concluded that treatment 7 (audio-visual

preview, positive testimonial type and company–neutral testimonial source) and

treatment 8 (audio-visual preview, realistic testimonial type and company–neutral

testimonial source) is the best web design to trigger the highest level of intention to

apply.

145

5.2 Results from Study 2

5.2.1 Sample Demographics for Study 2

In the second study, another 2x2x2 full factorial between-group design (Trochim

2008) is implemented to test the validity of hypothetical models 1, 2, 3 and 4 using an

web-based experimental survey with job-seekers who are already employed for the

past 1-2 years who have registered their details in various third-party job portals such

as Naukri.com, Monster.com etc. and have been actively involved in online job

search. Taking cue from the India Online Landscape Survey, job-seekers with either

or both engineering and MBA backgrounds and with less than 2 years of experience

have been identified as the target population. At first, email id of registered users at

Naukri and Monster, two of India‘s largest job portals have been identified using

search key terms ‗engineering‘, ‗B.E.‘, B.Tech.‘, ‗MBA‘, PGDM‘, ‗1-2 years

experience‘ and with addresses bearing names of metro cities (Kolkata, Mumbai,

Delhi NCR, Hyderabad, Chennai, Bengaluru, Pune and Ahmedabad). The profile of

the registered users could be accessed through the co-operation of third-party

recruiters who have employer login access to these websites.

In order to maintain the confidentiality of the individuals, only a list of email-ids was

provided by the third-party recruiters, who have either or both MBA and engineering

degrees, have worked for at most 1-2 years and who are located in the various metro

cities in India. This helped to ensure that the list consisted of those urban Indian job-

seekers who occupy a significant portion of the active job-seeker population

registered in various E-recruitment websites as per the India Online Landscape

Survey (2012). The final list included 1425 email-ids with respondent location

mentioned with corresponding email ids. Random allocation technique was used to

146

divide the total sample into eight different groups and emails were sent to the

respondents to take part in the study 100 at a time.

The respondents were then contacted through a formal email briefing them about the

purpose of the study and then requesting them to take part in the survey. In total, 361

recipients responded to the invitation and agreed to take part in the study with

response rate of 25.33 %. The response rate is coherent with the expected standard for

web-based surveys (Nulty, 2008). Then using the online random number generator

(research randomizer), the respondents were assigned to eight different groups of

approximate size of 45 members each labeled from 1 to 8. Eight different

questionnaire surveys were created using an online survey development company

‗Webs‘ (www.webs.com) with each survey containing a different link to eight types

of websites different in terms of the treatment conditions.

The online survey questionnaires with different website manipulations were then

randomly sent to the randomly selected groups to achieve completely randomized

experiment. For example, those respondents in group 1 were directed to a treatment 3

website which had audio-visual preview-mode, positive employee testimonial

propagated through a company dependent platform. Similarly, respondents in group 4

visited a website of ECS which had text-based corporate preview, realistic employee

testimonial and company-neutral source. Like this, eight groups of respondents

received eight different treatments.

The online questionnaire was designed with a very simple interface so that

participants can understand the necessary actions to be action to complete the survey.

All questions were mandatory, i.e., unless respondents answered all the queries, the

questionnaire could not be submitted. The completed responses which were submitted

got recorded in an excel file. Hence in study 2, there was no case of missing data. The

http://www.webs.com/

147

final sample size of 361 can be considered adequate for running experimental designs

with a statistical power of 80 % and effect size of 0.5 (Cohen 1988).

Table 17: Demographic Characteristics for Sample of Study 2

Demographic

Variable

Category Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 229 63.4

Female 132 36.6

Age <20 yrs nil 0

20-25 yrs 271 75.1

26-30 yrs 90 24.9

Educational

qualification

Graduate 161 44.59

Postgraduate 184 50.96

Professional courses 16 4.432

Undergraduate 0 0

Educational

Specialization

Engineering (BE/ B Tech) 124 34.35

MBA 168 46.54

MCA/BCA 29 8.033

MALLB/ BALLB 16 4.432

148

Others 24 6.65

Work Experience < 1 yr 54 15.0

1-2 yrs 165 45.7

2-3 yrs 107 29.6

3-4 yrs 35 9.7

Involvement in online

job search

< 1 yr 85 23.54

1-2 yrs 138 38.23

2-3 yrs 107 29.64

3-4 yrs 20 5.54

> 4 yrs 11 3.04

Registration in online

job portals

Nil 0 0

Naukri 355 98.37

Monster 305 84.48

Timesjobs 188 52.07

Shine 79 21.88

Others 20 5.54

149

Location Delhi NCR 56 15.52

Mumbai 54 14.95

Kolkata 49 13.57

Chennai 46 12.74

Pune 36 9.97

Bengaluru 42 11.63

Ahmedabad 33 9.14

Hyderabad 45 12.46

As far as sample demographics are concerned, approximately 64 % respondents of

study 2 are male and 75 % are in the age group of 20-25 years. Nearly 83 % of these

individuals have less than one year of experience. Respondents are mostly graduate

(44.5 %) and postgraduate (51%) with MBA and B.E./B.Tech degrees accounting for

80 % of the educational qualification which approximates the actual population data

obtained in the India Online report. Over 60 % respondents reported work experience

in the range of 1-2 years while another 30 % reported work experience of 2-3 years.

Of high interest is the fact that nearly 68 % respondents replied that they have been

actively involved in online job search process in the past 1-3 years. 98 % respondents

replied that they have registered profiles in Naukri.com while 90 % replied that they

have profile in Monster.com, followed by Timesjobs.com at a distant third (52%).

150

5.2.2 Data Analysis for Study 2

5.2.2.1 Descriptive Statistics

Overall, the means gave indications that the respondents in our sample had fairly high

perceptions of quality of the website (M = 3.515, SD = 1.1082) and credibility (M =

3.368, SD = 1.1352). Perceived organizational attractiveness (M = 3.798, SD = .9071)

and intention to apply (M = 3.471, SD = 1.0464) were also high in the individuals.

The correlation matrix (Table 18) gave indications that perceived credibility is

positively correlated with perceived quality (r = .420), organizational attractiveness (r

= .386) and intention to apply (r = .537). Perceived quality is also positively

correlated with attractiveness (r = .356) and intention to apply (r = .651).

Organizational attractiveness is found to have a positive correlation with intention to

apply (r = .431). The reliability coefficients have been reported in the diagonals for

each construct. Cronbach Alpha values are all above 0.9 (Nunally 1978) indicating

good reliability of the scales.

Table 18: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Diagnostics [Study 2]

Name of construct M SD 1. 2. 3. 4.

1.Perceived Credibility 3.3684 1.13529 .948** .820 .386 .937

2. Perceived Quality 3.5152 1.10826 .820 .961** .356 .851

3. Organizational Attractiveness 3.7978 .90713 .386 .356 .939** .431

4. Intention to Apply 3.4709 1.04638 .937 .851 .431 .930**

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

**Cronbach α reliability coefficients reported in the diagonal, N=361

151

5.2.2.2 Manipulation Checks (Study 2)

Once again, three separate manipulation checks were conducted with the overall

sample to verify the following three premises- to check the perceived difference in

intention to apply for the audio-visual-preview and text preview, to check the

perceived difference in intention to apply for positive and realistic testimonial and to

check the perceived difference in intention to apply for company-dependent and

company neutral testimonial sources.



Manipulation

(Preview-mode)

N

Mean SD Std.

Error


(2 tailed)

Text 180 3.8389 .75608 .0563 Equal variance

Assumed

Equal variance

not assumed

-1.881

-1.881

359

359

.041**

.041**

Audio-visual 181 3.9890 .76004 .0565

*p<.05

The mean intention to apply for text preview is found to be 3.839 and that for audio-

visual previews is 3.989, and the mean difference is significant at 5 % level of

significance (refer to table 19). This indicates that the manipulation of preview-mode

was comprehended properly by the respondents. The mean intention to apply for

positive testimonial is found to be 3.395 and that for audio-visual previews is 4.037,

and the mean difference is significant at 1 % level of significance (refer to table 20).

This indicates that the manipulation of testimonial-type was also comprehended

properly by the respondents. The mean intention to apply for company dependent

152

testimonial-source is found to be 3.6201 and that for audio-visual previews is 3.9725,

and the mean difference is significant at 99 % level of confidence.



Manipulation

(Testimonial-type)

N

Mean SD Std.

Error


(2 tailed)

Positive 172 3.395 1.0235 .07804 Equal variance

Assumed

Equal variance

not assumed

-6.730

-6.647

359

319

.000*

.000*

Realistic 189 4.037 .78123 .05683

*p<.01

This provides evidence that the manipulation of testimonial-source was

comprehended properly by the respondents.



Manipulation

(Testimonial-source)

N

Mean SD Std.

Error


(2 tailed)

Company-dependent 179 3.6201 .94859 .0709 Equal variance

Assumed

Equal variance not

assumed

-3.757

-3.753

359

351

.000*

.000*

Company-neutral 182 3.9725 .83057 .0616

*p<.01

153

5.2.3 Phase I results (Study 2)

The experimental design for phase 1 (study 2) can be represented as under:

Perceived Quality + Perceived Credibility + Organizational Attractiveness +



x Testimonial-source) + β6 (Preview-mode x Testimonial-source) + β7 (Preview-

mode x Testimonial-type x Testimonial-source) + Error

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted using SPSS 16 with

the dependent variable block including the constructs of perceived credibility,

perceived quality, organizational attractiveness and intention to apply and preview-

mode (two factors-text/ audio-visual), testimonial-type (two factors-positive/ realistic)

and testimonial-source (two factors- company dependent/ company neutral) as fixed

factors. The Levene‘s test for homogeneity of variance was found to be insignificant

(p > .05) in case of each dependent variable which helped in meeting the necessary

assumptions to conduct a MANOVA (refer Table 22).

TABLE 22: Levene’s test for MANOVA [Study 2]

Name of variable F df1 df2 Significance

Perceived Quality 5.093 7 353 .145

Perceived Credibility 3.398 7 353 .072


Intention to apply 5.443 7 353 .067

The results from the MANOVA analysis indicate that the multivariate test of




154


testimonial-type and testimonial-source) on the dependent variables. The observed

power for the above variables (greater than 0.8) also indicates strong possibility of

main and interaction effect (Hair et al. 1998).

TABLE 23: Multivariate Test of Significance for Perceived Quality,

Perceived Credibility, Organizational Attractiveness and Intention to

Apply [Study 2]


Significance

Value F Value Significance Partial Eta

Squared

Observed

Power


Lambda .668 43.514 .000 .332 1.000


Lambda .812 20.304 .000 .188 1.000


Lambda .512 83.532 .000 .488 1.000

Preview-mode X

Testimonial-type

Wilk‘s

Lambda .944 5.152 .000 .056 .967

Preview-mode X

Testimonial-source

Wilk‘s

Lambda .969 2.802 .026 .031 .815

Testimonial-type X

Testimonial-source

Wilk‘s

Lambda .934 6.150 .000 .066 .987

Preview-mode X

Testimonial-type X

Testimonial-source

Wilk‘s

Lambda .984 1.438 .021 .086 .847

Table 24 shows the effect of treatment variables on each dependent variable separately.

The univariate results indicate that preview-mode does not have any main effect on

perceived quality [F (4, 350) = 2.962, p = .085] and perceived credibility [F (4, 350) =

4.536, p = .087] of E- recruitment platforms for the jobseekers. However, preview-mode

is found to have a significant main effect on organizational attractiveness [F (4, 350) =

115.475, p = .001, effect size = .247] and intention to apply [F (4, 350) = 76.596, p =

.001, effect size= .178]. Testimonial-type has a main effect on perceived credibility [F (4,

155

350) = 79.264, p = .001, effect size = .184], organizational attractiveness [F (4, 350) =

42.579, p = .001, effect size = .108] and intention to apply [F (4, 350) = 39.848, p = .001,

effect size = .101]. Testimonial-source is noticed to have significant main effect on

perceived quality [F (4, 350) = 329.482, p = .001, effect size = .483] and organizational

attractiveness [F (4, 350) = 92.234, p = .005, effect size = .207].

The two-way interaction effect of preview-mode and testimonial-type is significant for

only perceived credibility, that too at 95 % confidence level [F (4, 350) = 6.520, p = .011,

effect size = .058]. Two-way interaction between preview-mode and testimonial-source is

significant only on perceived quality [F (4, 350) = 10.147, p = .002, effect size = .068].

Effect of the two-way interaction between testimonial-type and testimonial-source is

again significant for only perceived quality [F (4, 350) = 4.589, p = .033, effect size =

.083].


source is significant at 99 % confidence interval for perceived quality [F (4, 350) = 7.677,

p = .001, effect size = .085], perceived credibility [F (4, 350) = 8.473, p = .001, effect size

= .094], organizational attractiveness [F (4, 350) = 10.485, p = .001, effect size = .194]

and intention to apply [F (4, 350) = 9.327, p = .001, effect size = .152]. The effect sizes

(partial eta squared) for all significant effects range between .08 - .50 which indicates

small to moderate effect of the treatments on the dependent variables (Cohen 1988). The

findings suggest that all four dependent variables are perceived differently in case of

only the three-way interaction. This indicates that websites with different

combinations of preview-mode, testimonial-type and testimonial-source have a

possibility of being differently perceived by job-seekers while seeking job-related

information through internet compared to websites with either a single treatment or a

combination of any two treatments.

156

TABLE 24: Univariate Test of Significance for Perceived Quality, Perceived

Credibility, Organizational Attractiveness and Intention to Apply [Study 2]

Main & Interaction Effects

F Value

Partial

Eta

Squared

Observed

power

Preview-mode Perceived Quality

Preview-modePerceived Credibility

Preview-modeOrganizational Attractiveness

Preview-modeIntention to apply

2.962

3.536

115.745*

76.596*

.009

.018

.247

.178

.488

.542

1.000

1.000

Testimonial-type Perceived Quality

Testimonial-type Perceived Credibility

Testimonial-type Organizational Attractiveness


4.706

79.264*

42.579*

39.848*

.024

.184

.108

.101

.737

1.000

1.000

1.000

Testimonial-source Perceived Quality

Testimonial-source Perceived Credibility

Testimonial-source Organizational Attractiveness

Testimonial-source Intention to apply

329.482*

6.520

92.234*

4.433

.483

.019

.207

.013

1.000

.655

1.000

.388

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type Perceived Quality

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type Perceived Credibility

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type Organizational Attractiveness

Preview-mode X Testimonial-typeIntention to apply

3.811

6.520**

3.799

1.415

.011

.058

.011

.004

.495

.821

.494

.220

Preview-mode X Testimonial-source Perceived Quality

Preview-mode X Testimonial-source Perceived Credibility

Preview-mode X Testimonial-source Organizational Attractiveness


10.147*

1.667

.521

1.621

.068

.005

.001

.005

.888

.251

.111

.246

157

Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Perceived Quality

Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Perceived Credibility

Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Organizational Attractiveness


4.589**

.366

1.438

.557

.083

.001

.004

.002

.870

.093

.223

.116

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Quality

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source Credibility



apply

7.677*

8.473*

10.485*

9.327*

.085

.094

.194

.152

.852

.828

.929

.946

*p< 0.01, **p<0.05





and testimonial-type as treatment variables.


Testimonial-type

3.37

3.05

3.11

3.73

Estimated Marginal Means of Perceived Quality Testimonial-type

158

The profile plot shows that for video-based preview and realistic employee

testimonial, perceived quality of website is highest. Perceived quality was lower than

the above case in both the following situations:

a. Video based preview and positive testimonial

b. Text based preview and realistic testimonial.


mode is audio-visual and testimonial-type is positive.

Profile Plot 37. Dependent variable-Perceived Quality, Treatment Variables-


Figure 48 demonstrates the marginal means of perceived quality, given

preview-mode and testimonial-source as treatment variables. The profile plot shows

that for realistic testimonial posted through company-independent source of employee

testimonial, estimated marginal means for perceived quality of website is highest.

Perceived quality is lower than the above case in the situation where there is positive

testimonial and company neutral testimonial-source.

Figure 48: Profile Plot 37: DV- Perceived Quality; IV- Preview-mode, Testimonial-

source

However, the lowest marginal means were recorded for the scenarios where the

testimonial is positive or realistic and testimonial-type is company-dependent.

2.57 2.53

3.74

4.18


Testimonial-source

Testimonial-type

159

Profile Plot 38. Dependent Variable-Perceived Quality, Treatment Variables- Preview-

mode, Testimonial-source


and testimonial-source as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that for audio-visual

previews and company-independent source of employee testimonial, estimated marginal

means for perceived quality of website is highest. Perceived quality is lower than the

above case in the following situations:



c. Text preview and company dependent testimonial-source.

Figure 49: Profile Plot 38: DV- Perceived Quality; IV- Testimonial-type,

Testimonial-source

2.60

2.50

3.53

4.30


Testimonial-source

160



Figure 50 demonstrates the marginal means of perceived credibility, given testimonial-

type and preview-mode as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that for video-

based preview and realistic employee testimonial, perceived credibility of website is

highest. Perceived credibility was lower than the above case in both the following

situations:


b. Video based preview and positive testimonial.


Testimonial-type


mode is text based and testimonial-type is positive.

2.45

3.53

4.15

3.33

Testimonial-type


161




testimonial-source and testimonial-type as treatment variables. The profile plot shows

that for realistic testimonial and company-neutral source of employee testimonial,

estimated marginal means for perceived credibility of website is highest. Perceived

credibility is lower than the above case in both the following situations:

a. Positive testimonial and company neutral testimonial-source

b. Realistic testimonial and company dependent testimonial-source.


testimonial is positive and testimonial-source is company-dependent.


Testimonial-source

3.38

4.15

2.77

3.42


Testimonial-source

Testimonial-type

162




testimonial-source and preview-mode as treatment variables. The profile plot shows

that for audio-visual preview and company-neutral source of employee testimonial,



a. Video preview and company dependent testimonial-source

b. Text preview and company neutral testimonial-source.


preview is text based but testimonial-source is company-dependent.

Figure 52: Profile Plot 41: DV- Perceived Credibility; IV-Testimonial-type,

Testimonial-source




preview-mode and testimonial-type as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that

for video-based preview and realistic employee testimonial, perceived attractiveness

4.32

3.15

3.50

2.67


Testimonial-source

163

of website is highest. Perceived attractiveness was lower than the above case in both

the following situations:


b. Video based preview and positive testimonial.



Figure 53: Profile Plot 42: DV- Organizational Attractiveness; IV-Testimonial-type,

Previewmode




testimonial-type and testimonial-source as treatment variables. The profile plot shows

that for realistic testimonial and company-neutral source of employee testimonial,

estimated marginal means for perceived attractiveness of website is highest. Perceived

attractiveness is lower than the above case in both the following situations:

3.40

4.00

3.727

2.245

Testimonial-type


164

a. Positive testimonial and company neutral testimonial-source

b. Realistic testimonial and company dependent testimonial-source.




Testimonial-source




testimonial-source and preview-mode as treatment variables. The profile plot shows

that for realistic employee testimonial and company-independent source of employee

testimonial, estimated marginal means for perceived attractiveness of website is

highest. Perceived attractiveness is lower than the above case in both the following

situations:

3.45

4.10

2.53

3.25

Testimonial-source


Testimonial-type

165

a. text preview and company neutral testimonial-source

b. audio-visual preview and company neutral testimonial-source.


is textual but testimonial-source is company-dependent.




Testimonial-type, preview-mode


type and preview-mode as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that for realistic

employee testimonial and audio-visual preview, estimated marginal means for

intention to apply is highest. Intention to apply is lower than the above case in both

the following situations:

a. positive employee testimonial and video preview

b. Realistic employee testimonial and text preview

4.20

3.40 3.42

2.75

Testimonial-source


166


testimonial is positive but preview is text based.


Preview-mode



Figure 57 demonstrates the marginal means of Intention to apply, given testimonial-


realistic employee testimonial and company-independent source of employee

testimonial, estimated marginal means for intention to apply is highest. Intention to

apply is lower than the above case in both the following situations:





3.40

4.11

3.60

2.77


Testimonial-type

167

Figure 57: Profile Plot 46: DV- Intention to Apply; IV-Preview-mode, Testimonial-

source

Profile Plot 47. Dependent variable- Intention to Apply, Treatment Variables-


Figure 58: Profile Plot 47: DV- Intention to apply; IV-Preview-mode,

Testimonial-source


source and preview-mode as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that for

audio-visual preview and company-independent source of employee testimonial,

4.15

3.60

3.33

2.75

4.30

3.45 3.40

2.71

Testimonial-type

Testimonial-source



Testimonial-source

168






is text based but testimonial-source is company-dependent.

Profile Plot 48. Dependent Variable- Perceived Quality, Treatment Variables- Preview-

mode, Testimonial-type, Testimonial-source (Company-dependent)


Testimonial-type, at Testimonial-source (Company-dependent)


type and preview-mode as treatment variables when testimonial source is company-

dependent. The profile plot shows that for company-dependent source of employee

testimonial, if testimonial is realistic and preview of firm is audio-visual, estimated

2.77

2.51

2.50

2.67


Testimonial-type


169

marginal means for perceived quality of website is highest. Perceived quality is lower


a. Positive employee testimonial and audio-visual preview

b. Realistic employee testimonial and text preview.


testimonial is positive, preview is text based and testimonial-source is company-

dependent.

Profile Plot 49. Dependent Variable- Perceived Quality, Treatment Variables-





type and preview-mode as treatment variables when source of advertisement is

company neutral. The profile plot shows that for company-neutral source of employee

4.62

3.72

4.00

3.54


Testimonial-type


170


marginal means for perceived quality of website is highest. Perceived quality is lower







testimonial-type and preview-mode as treatment variables when testimonial source is

company-dependent.



The profile plot shows that for company-dependent source of employee testimonial, if

testimonial is realistic and preview of firm is audio-visual, estimated marginal means for

3.72

3.20 3.30

2.00

Testimonial-type



171

perceived credibility of website is highest. Perceived credibility is lower than the above

case in both the following situations:




is positive, preview is text based and testimonial-source is company-dependent.





4.50

3.50

3.90

2.70

Testimonial-type



172


testimonial-type and preview-mode as treatment variables when source of

advertisement is company neutral. The profile plot shows that for company-neutral source

of employee testimonial, if testimonial is realistic and preview of firm is audio-visual,






is positive, preview is text based and testimonial-source is company-independent.



dependent)


testimonial-type and preview-mode as treatment variables when source of ad is

company dependent. The profile plot shows that for company-dependent source of

employee testimonial, if testimonial is realistic and preview of firm is audio-visual,

estimated marginal means for perceived organizational attractiveness of website is


situations:



173


is positive, preview is text based and testimonial-source is company-dependent.






testimonial-type and preview-mode as treatment variables when source of ad is

company neutral. The profile plot shows that for company-independent source of

employee testimonial, if testimonial is realistic and preview of firm is audio-visual,

estimated marginal means for perceived organizational attractiveness of website is


situations:

3.50

3.00

3.27

2.25

Testimonial-type



174




is positive, preview is text based and testimonial-source is company-independent.






type and preview-mode as treatment variables when testimonial source is company

dependent. The profile plot shows that for company-dependent source of employee


marginal means for intention to apply is highest. Intention to apply is lower among

job-seekers than the above case in both the following situations:

4.50

3.53

3.62

3.00

Testimonial-type



175

a. Realistic employee testimonial and text preview.




dependent.


variables- Preview-mode, Testimonial-type at Testimonial-source (Company-

dependent)




type and preview-mode as treatment variables when testimonial source is company

independent. The profile plot shows that for company-neutral source of employee


3.50

3.20 3.18

2.25

Testimonial-type



176

marginal means for intention to apply is highest. Intention to apply is lower among

job-seekers than the above case in both the following situations:





independent.


Variables- Preview-mode and Testimonial-type at Testimonial-source

(Company-neutral)

4.60

3.55

3.90

3.22

Testimonial-type



177

5.2.4 Phase II result (Study 2)


Organizational Attractiveness + Intention to apply= β0 + β1 (Preview-mode) + β2

(Testimonial-type) + β3 (Testimonial-source) + β4 (Preview-mode x Testimonial-

type) + β5 (Testimonial-type x Testimonial-source) + β6 (Preview-mode x

Testimonial-source) + β7 (Preview-mode x Testimonial-type x Testimonial-source) +

β8 (Perceived Quality) + β9 (Perceived Quality) + Error

A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted using SPSS 16

with the dependent variable block including the constructs of organizational

attractiveness and intention to apply, perceived credibility, perceived quality as

covariates and preview-mode (two factors-text/ audio-visual), testimonial-type (two

factors-positive/ realistic) and testimonial-source (two factors- company dependent/

company neutral) as fixed factors. The Levene‘s test for homogeneity of variance was

found to be insignificant (p > .05) which helped in meeting the necessary assumptions

to conduct a MANCOVA (refer Table 25).

Table 25: Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances for MANCOVA

[Study 2]

Name of Variable F df1 df2 Significance


Intention to apply 2.376 7 353 .072

The results from the MANCOVA analysis indicate that the multivariate test of




178


testimonial-type and testimonial-source) on the dependent variables.

TABLE 26: Multivariate Test of Significance for Organizational Attractiveness



Significance

Value F Value Sig. Partial Eta

Squared

Observed

Power

Perceived Quality Wilk‘s

Lambda

.937 11.733 .000 .263 .994

Perceived Credibility Wilk‘s

Lambda

.575 1.2952 .000 .425 1.000


Lambda

.979 3.719 .025 .051 .880


Lambda

.999 .169 .045 .041 .876


Lambda

.990 3.830 .022 .037 .881

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type Wilk‘s

Lambda

.997 .561 .041 .033 .843

Preview-mode X Testimonial-

source

Wilk‘s

Lambda

.997 .524 .023 .039 .836

Testimonial-type X Testimonial-

source

Wilk‘s

Lambda

.956 8.130 .000 .044 .858

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type

X Testimonial-source

Wilk‘s

Lambda

.990 4.187 .005 .145 .977

The observed power for the above variables (greater than 0.8) also indicates strong

possibility of main and interaction effect (Hair et al. 1998). Table 27 shows the effect

of treatment variables on each dependent variable separately. The univariate results

indicate that perceived website quality has a significant main effect on organizational

attractiveness [F (2, 350) = 12.634, p = .001, effect size= .065] and intention to apply

[F (2, 350) = 23.523, p = .001, effect size = .063] for the jobseekers.

179

Perceived credibility has a highly significant main effect on organizational

attractiveness [F (2, 350) = 246.455, p = .001, effect size = .413] and intention to

apply [F (2, 350) = 190.179, p = .001, effect size = .352]. It is also observed that

preview-mode exerts a notable main effect on organizational attractiveness [F (2, 350)

= 3.290, p = .005, effect size = .079] but has no significant main effect on intention to

apply (p = .097). Testimonial-type has no main effect only on intention to apply (p =

.112), and organizational attractiveness (p = .074). Testimonial-source is noticed to

have significant main effect on organizational attractiveness [F (2, 350) = 3.941, p =

.008, effect size = .073] but not on intention to apply (p = .068).

The two-way interaction effect of preview-mode and testimonial-type is neither

significant for organizational attractiveness (p = .412) nor for intention to apply (p =

.903). Two-way interaction between preview-mode and testimonial-source is also not

significant on organizational attractiveness (p = .398) and intention to apply (p =

.837). As for the two-way interaction between testimonial-type and testimonial-

source, significant effect is observed for organizational attractiveness [F (2, 350) =

3.419, p = .005, effect size = .081] and intention to apply [F (2, 350) = 3.369, p =

.004, effect size = .096]. The three-way interaction between preview-mode,

testimonial-type and testimonial-source is also observed to be significant for

organizational attractiveness [F (2, 350) = 7.321, p = .002, effect size = .122] and

intention to apply [F (2, 350) = 10.251, p = .001, effect size = .146) respectively. The

effect sizes (partial eta squared) for all significant effects are in the range .06-.5 which

indicates small to moderate effect of the treatments on the dependent variables (Cohen

1988; Kotrlik & Williams 2003).

180

TABLE 27: Univariate Test of Significance for Organizational Attractiveness



Eta

Squared

Observe

d power

Perceived Quality Attractiveness Perceived Quality Intention to apply

12.634* 23.523*

.065

.063 .943 .998

Perceived Credibility Attractiveness

Perceived Credibility Intention to apply

246.455*

190.179*

.413

.352

1.000

1.000


Preview-mode Intention to apply

3.290**

.014

.079

.000

.840

.052

Testimonial-type Attractiveness


.160

.338

.000

.001

.068

.089

Testimonial-source Attractiveness Testimonial-source Intention to apply

3.941** .406

.073

.001 .802 .097

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type Attractiveness

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type Intention to apply

.674

.015

.002

.000

.130

.052



.717

.042

.002

.000

.135

.055



3.419*

3.369*

.081

.096

.954

.911



apply

7.321**

10.251*

.122

.146

.917

.977

*p<.001, **p<.01

The findings suggest that perceptions regarding attractiveness of an organization as a

potential employer as well as job aspirant‘s intention to apply for any vacancy in the

firm are perceived differently depending on the main effects of perceived quality,

perceived credibility, preview-mode and testimonial-source. Testimonial-type

accounts for only the difference in perception towards intention to apply. Two-way

interactions are significant for combination of treatments preview-mode and

testimonial-type, and for combinations of testimonial-type and testimonial-source.

The three-way interaction is also significant on job-seekers‘ perception regarding

181

organizational attraction and intention to apply. However, a combination of preview-

mode and testimonial-source is not found to be significant for influencing intention to

apply. This combination is found to trigger only difference in perception towards

attractiveness of a firm. This indicates that websites with different combinations of

preview-mode, testimonial-type and testimonial-source have a possibility of being

differently perceived by job-seekers while seeking job-related information through

internet compared to websites with either a single treatment or a combination of any

two treatments.





preview-mode and testimonial-type as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that

for video-based preview and positive employee testimonial, perceived attractiveness

of website is highest.

Perceived attractiveness was lower than the above case in both the following

situations:

a. Video based preview and realistic testimonial

b. Text based preview and realistic testimonial



182

Figure 67. Profile Plot 56: DV- Organizational Attractiveness; IV-Testimonial-type,

Previewmode



Figure 68. Profile Plot 57: DV- Organizational Attractiveness; IV-Preview-mode,

Testimonial-source


preview-mode and testimonial-source as treatment variables. The profile plot shows

3.48

3.46

3.38

3.32

3.56

3.45

3.43

3.27



Testimonial-type

Testimonial-source

183

that for video-based preview and company-neutral source of employee testimonial,

estimated marginal means for perceived attractiveness is highest. Perceived

attractiveness is lower than the above case in both the following situations:


b. Video based preview and company dependent testimonial-source.


mode is text-based but testimonial-source is company-dependent.



Figure 69. Profile Plot 58: DV- Organizational Attractiveness; IV-Testimonial-type,

Testimonial-source


testimonial-type and preview-mode as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that

for realistic employee testimonial and company-independent source of employee

testimonial, estimated marginal means for perceived attractiveness of website is

3.53

3.42

3.38

3.32


Testimonial-type

Testimonial-source

184


situations:


b. Positive employee testimonial and company dependent testimonial-source.





Figure 70 demonstrates the marginal means of intention to apply, given

testimonial-type and preview-mode as treatment variables.

Figure 70. Profile Plot 59: DV- Intention to Apply; IV-Testimonial-type,

Preview-mode

The profile plot shows that for realistic employee testimonial and text preview,


than the above case in the following situation where there is realistic employee

3.495

3.479

3.447 3.445


Testimonial-type

185

testimonial along with audio-visual preview. The scenarios which registered the

lowest intention to apply were:

a. Realistic employee testimonial and text preview.

b. Positive testimonial and audio-visual preview.





Figure 71. Profile Plot 60: DV- Intention to Apply; IV-Preview-mode, Testimonial-

source

The profile plot shows that for text based preview and company-neutral source of

employee testimonial, estimated marginal means for intention to apply is highest.

Intention to apply is lesser than the above case in the situation where there was audio-

visual corporate preview and company neutral testimonial-source. Intention to apply

was lowest for the following two situations:

a. Audio-visual preview and company dependent testimonial-source.

3.53

3.48

3.43 3.44


Testimonial-source

186

b. Text based preview and company-dependent testimonial-source.

Profile Plot 61. Dependent Variable- Intention to apply, Treatment Variables-




positive employee testimonial and company-independent source of employee

testimonial, estimated marginal means for intention to apply is highest.


Testimonial-source

Intention to apply is lesser than the above case in both the following situations:

a. Realistic employee testimonial and company dependent testimonial-source



testimonial is positively designed but testimonial-source is company-dependent.

3.51 3.49

3.47

3.385


Testimonial-type

Testimonial-source

187



dependent)


testimonial-type, preview-mode and testimonial-source (company-dependent) as


Figure 73. Profile Plot 62: DV- Organizational Attractiveness; IV- Preview-



company-dependent sources, along with audio-visual corporate previews, estimated


testimonials presented through company dependent channels if the preview-mode is

video based, then attractiveness is higher than in the cases where testimonial is either

positive or realistic and preview is text based.


Testimonial-type At Testimonial-source

3.52

3.35

3.28

3.26

188






Figure 74. Profile Plot 63: DV- Organizational Attractiveness; IV- Preview-



company-neutral sources, along with audio-visual corporate previews, estimated


testimonials presented through company dependent channels with text based preview-

mode attractiveness perception is second highest, followed by the scenario where the

testimonial is positive but the preview is audio-visual. It is lowest for the scenario

3.57

3.52

3.47

3.37


Testimonial-type At Testimonial-source

189

wherein the preview is text based and testimonial is positively framed through a

company-neutral channel.

Profile Plot 64. Dependent Variable-Intention to apply, Treatment Variables-

Preview-mode, Testimonial-Type, Testimonial-source (Company-dependent)


type, preview-mode and testimonial-source (company-dependent) as treatment

variables.

Figure 75. Profile Plot 64: DV- Intention to Apply; IV- Preview-mode,



company-dependent sources, along with textual corporate previews, estimated

marginal mean for intention to apply is highest. In case of realistic testimonials

presented along with video based preview-mode and in case of positive testimonials

with audio-visual previews, there is not much significant difference in intention to

apply. It is further observed that, if positive testimonials are to be propagated through

3.43

3.42

3.54

3.33


Testimonial-type


190

company-dependent channels, in such case corporate previews should not be

presented in text based mode, since it significantly lowers job-seekers‘ intention to

apply.




type, preview-mode and testimonial-source (company-neutral) as treatment variables.

Figure 76. Profile Plot 65: DV- Intention to Apply; IV- Preview-mode,

Testimonial-type, at Testimonial-source (Company-neutral)


company-neutral sources, along with text based corporate previews, estimated

marginal mean for intention to apply is highest. Next best scenario for a high intention

to apply is when realistic testimonials are presented along with audio-visual preview-

mode.

3.571

3.517

3.445 3.458


Testimonial-type At Testimonial-source = Company Neutral

191

5.2.5 Phase III Result (Study 2)




x Testimonial-source) + β6 (Preview-mode x Testimonial-source) + β7 (Preview-

mode x Testimonial-type x Testimonial-source) + β8 (Perceived Quality) + β9

(Perceived Quality) + β10 (Organizational Attractiveness) + Error

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted using SPSS 16 with the dependent

variable intention to apply, perceived credibility, perceived quality as covariates and

preview-mode (two factors-text/ audio-visual), testimonial-type (two factors-positive/

realistic) and testimonial-source (two factors- company dependent/ company neutral)

as fixed factors. The results revealed that perceived quality [F (1, 350) = 10.419, p =

.001, effect size = .059], perceived credibility [F (1, 350 = 7.779, p = .006, effect size

= .062] and organizational attractiveness [F (1, 350) = 372.766, p = .001, effect size=

.516] are all significant predictors of purchase intention. Among the treatments, only

preview-mode shows significant main effect [F (1, 350) = 4.119, p = .043, effect size

= .032]. The two way interaction between preview-mode and type of testimonial [F

(1, 350) = .449, p = .503] and that between preview-mode and source of testimonial-

type were found to be insignificant [F (1, 350) = .332, p = .565].

Only the two-way interaction between testimonial-type and testimonial-source were

found to be significant [F (1, 350) = 12.726, p = .001, effect size = .095]. The three

way interaction between preview-mode, testimonial-type and testimonial-source was

found to be significant at 95 % confidence interval [F (1, 350) = 5.493, p = .042,

effect size = .11].

192

TABLE 28: Test of Significance for Dependent Variable Intention to Apply

[Study 2]

Predictor variable F Value Partial Eta Squared

Observed Power

Perceived Quality 10.491* .059 .898

Perceived Credibility 7.779* .062 .894

Organizational Attraction 372.766* .516 1.000

Preview-mode 4.119** .032 .826

Testimonial-type .178 .001 .071

Testimonial-source .722 .002 .135

Preview-mode X Testimonial-type .449 .001 .103

Preview-mode X Testimonial-source .332 .001 .089

Testimonial-type X Testimonial-source 12.726* .095 .945


Testimonial-source

15.493** .110 .832

*p<.01, **p<.05

193





type and preview-mode as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that for positive

employee testimonial and text preview, estimated marginal means for intention to

apply is highest, closely followed by the situation where preview is text based but

testimonial is realistic. The lowest marginal mean was recorded for the scenario

where the testimonial is positive and preview is audio-visual.


Preview-mode

3.535

3.517

3.438

3.35

Testimonial-type


194




source and preview-mode as treatment variables. The profile plot shows that for text

preview and company-dependent source of employee testimonial, estimated marginal

means for intention to apply is highest. Intention to apply is lower than the above case

in the following situations:



c. Video preview and company neutral source

Figure 78. Profile Plot 67: DV- Intention to Apply; IV-Testimonial-source,

Preview-mode

Profile Plot 68: Dependent Variable- Intention to Apply; Treatment Variables -




realistic employee testimonial and company-dependent source of employee

3.56

3.42 3.47

3.40

Testimonial-source Estimated Marginal Means of intention to apply

195

testimonial, estimated marginal means for intention to apply is highest. Intention to

apply is lower than the above case in both the following situations:


b. Positive employee testimonial and company dependent testimonial-source


testimonial is realistic but testimonial-source is company-independent.


Testimonial-source


Testimonial-type, Preview-mode at Testimonial-source (Company-dependent)



dependent. The profile plot shows that for realistic employee testimonial and text

preview presented via company-dependent source, estimated marginal means for

intention to apply is highest.

3.58

3.51

3.41 3.363

Testimonial-type

Testimonial-source


196

Figure 80. Profile Plot 69: DV- Intention to Apply; IV-Preview-mode,



a. Realistic employee testimonial and audio-visual preview



testimonial is positive but preview is audio-visual given testimonial-source is

company-dependent.

Profile Plot 70: Dependent Variable- Intention to apply; Treatment Variables -

Testimonial-type, Preview-mode at Testimonial-source (Company-neutral)



neutral. The profile plot shows that for realistic employee testimonial and text

preview, estimated marginal means for intention to apply is highest.

3.67

3.49

3.45 3.37

Testimonial-type



197

Figure 81. Profile Plot 70: DV- Intention to apply; IV-Testimonial-type, Preview-

mode at Testimonial-source (Company-neutral)

Intention to apply is lower than the above case in both the following situations where

employee testimonial is realistic and preview is audio-visual and in the situation

where employee testimonial is positive and preview is audio-visual. However, the

lowest marginal mean was recorded for the scenario where the testimonial is positive

but preview is text based given testimonial-source is company-independent, though

the difference in mean is negligible.

3.61

3.41

3.38 3.36

Testimonial-type



198

5.2.6 Phase IV Results (Study 2)

A covariance based structural equation model (SEM) is estimated to assess the

hypothesized relationship. The fit of the structural model is acceptable, with χ2

(52) =

186.351 (p<.01), goodness of fit index (GFI) = .919, comparative fit index (CFI) =

.939, incremental fit index (IFI) = .923 and root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA) = .046. CMIN/df is calculated to be 3.584. Based on these results, the

measurement model indicates an acceptable model fit of the data (Hair et al., 1998).

Consistent with the different cut-off criteria provided in the literature (Joreskog, 1993;

Hu and Bentler 1999), it is concluded that the hypothesized causal model is within the

acceptable range of all the fit statistics.

Please refer to Table 29 for structural path model‘s estimates and a summary of the

results of the hypothesis tests. In H10a it is proposed that perceived quality positively

affects job-seekers‘ perception of organizational attraction (β1a = .174, p = .004) and

in H10b it is proposed that perceived quality positively affects their intention to apply

(β2a = .101, p = .001). Both these hypotheses receive support at 99 % level of

confidence. Our next two hypotheses (H11a and H11b) are also supported because

perceived credibility is found to have a positive effect on organizational attractiveness

(β2a = .609, p = .001) and intention to apply (β2b = .154, p = .003). Out of the

hypotheses H4a, H4b and H4c, H4b do not get any support but H4a and H4c receive

support as preview-mode (β3 = .094, p = .021) and testimonial-source (β5 = .114, p =

.002) are found to be significant. As seen in study I, organizational attractiveness

once again significantly influences intention to apply (β6 = .750, p = .001), providing

support for H14. In order to evaluate whether the impact of perceived quality on job-

seekers‘ intention to apply is fully mediated by organizational attractiveness, a path

199

from perceived quality to intention to apply is created and the chi-square difference

between the two models is evaluated.

Table 29: Moderating Effect of Preview-Mode, Testimonial-Type and

Testimonial-Source and Mediating Effect of Organizational Attractiveness

[Study 2]

Hypothesized Path Standardized path coefficients

Hypothesis β S.E. C.R.

Perceived Quality → Attractiveness

H10a .174* .060 2.918

Perceived Credibility→ Attractiveness

H11a .609* .053 10.908

Preview-mode →Attractiveness

H4a .094** .059 2.303

Testimonial-type → Attractiveness

H4b .022 .057 .571

Testimonial-source → Attractiveness

H4c .114** .057 3.071

Perceived Quality→ Intention to Apply

H10b .101** .030 3.329

Perceived Credibility → Intention to apply

H11b .154* .039 2.931

Attractiveness → Intention to Apply H14 .750* .042 18.947

Perceived Quality*Preview-modeAttractiveness H19a -.302* .041 -2.447

Perceived Quality*Testimonial-typeAttractiveness H19b -.016 .041 -.385

Perceived Quality*Testimonial-sourceAttractiveness H19c .037 .055 .760

Perceived Credibility*Preview-modeAttractiveness H20a -.043 .045 -1.087

Perceived Credibility*Testimonial-typeAttractiveness H20b .101** .043 2.193

Perceived Credibility*Testimonial-sourceAttractiveness H20c .095** .042 1.160

Fit Statistics

χ2 (df) 186.351 (52)

p .000

GFI .919

CFI .939

IFI .923

RMSEA .046

**p<.05; *p<.01 Notes: β represents standardized path coefficient

200

Figure 82: Structural Model with Path Coefficients [Study 2]

It is observed that the independent variable (perceived quality) has significant

relationship (βc=.101, p=.001, S.E. = .03) with the dependent variable intention to

apply and the mediating variable organizational attractiveness (βa=.174, p=.001, S.E.a

= .060); and the mediating variable also significantly predicts the dependent variable

(βb=.750, p=.001, S.E.b = .042). These results show that the hypothesized model

satisfy the basic conditions for mediation as proposed by Barron and Kenny (1982).

Afterwards, a Sobel‘s test (Sobel, 1982) was carried out to test the nature of

Perceived

Credibility

Organizational

Attractiveness

Intention to

Apply

Perceived

Quality

MOD 1

Preview-

mode

Testimonial-

type

Testimonial-

source

MOD 4 MOD 5 MOD 6

.174* .101**

. 750*

.154* .609*

.094**

.022

.114**

-.302*

-.016

.037

-.043

.111**

.095**

MOD 2

MOD 3

201

mediation. To calculate Sobel‘s test statistic, the same Sobel‘s statistics used in study

1 is used.

Sobel‘s test for significance = 2.86249824 (>1.96), with one-tailed probability =

.00210158, two-tailed probability = .00420316. The test statistic was significant at 99

% level of significance, indicating partial mediating effect (Preacher and Hayes 2003)

of organizational attractiveness on the relationship between perceived quality and

intention to apply. Thus we received partial support for our hypothesis 21. Next, in

order to evaluate whether the impact of perceived credibility on job-seekers‘ intention

to apply is fully mediated by organizational attractiveness, a path from perceived

credibility to intention to apply is created and the chi-square difference between the

two models is evaluated. It is observed that the independent variable (perceived

credibility) has a significant relationship (βc = .154, p = .001, S.E.c = .039) with the

dependent variable (intention to apply) and its relation (βa = .609, p = .001, S.E.a =

.053) with the mediating variable (organizational attractiveness) is also significant.

The mediating variable also significantly predicts the dependent variable (βb = .750, p

= .001, S.E.b = .042). These results show that the hypothesized model satisfy the basic

conditions for mediation as proposed by Barron and Kenny (1982). Another Sobel test

was conducted to test the nature of mediation and it was found that Sobel‘s test for

significance = 9.66291469 (>1.96), with one-tailed probability= .00, two-tailed

probability= .00. The test statistic was significant at 99 % level of significance,

indicating partial mediating effect (Preacher and Hayes 2003) of organizational

attractiveness on the relationship between perceived quality and intention to apply.

Thus we received partial support for our hypothesis 22.

In order to test for moderating effect of preview-mode, testimonial-type and

testimonial-source on the relationship between perceived quality and organizational

202

attractiveness, interaction terms are created for perceived quality with respect to

preview-mode, testimonial-type and testimonial-source. As can be observed,

perceived quality has significant main effect on organizational attractiveness (p =

.001). Interaction effect of perceived quality and preview-mode is found to be

significant on organizational attractiveness (p = .004), but interaction effect of

perceived quality with testimonial-type (p = .700) and testimonial-source (p = .448) is

insignificant. Hence H19a is supported, but H19b and H19c received no support. As for

moderating impact of preview-mode, testimonial-type and testimonial-source on the

relationship between perceived credibility and firm attractiveness, interaction terms

are created for perceived credibility with respect to preview-mode, testimonial-type

and testimonial-source. Perceived credibility has main effect on organizational

attractiveness (p = .001). Preview-mode (p = .277) does not demonstrate any

significant moderating effect on the relation between perceived credibility and firm

attractiveness. However, testimonial-type (p = .028) and testimonial-source (p = .046)

are observed to have significant moderating impact on the credibility-firm

attractiveness relationship. Hence H20a is not supported but H20b and H20c receive

complete support.

203

5.2.7 Phase V Results (Study 2): Post-Hoc Comparisons

Once again, post-hoc tests were conducted using Scheffe‘s test (Klockars and

Hancock 2000). The findings gave indications that in terms of intention to apply,

perceptions are different for those jobseekers in Group A who have viewed the

website with treatment condition 1 compared to Groups C, D, G, and H which

correspond to treatment conditions 3, 4, 7 and 8 (MDs significant at p < .01).

However, perceptions are not significantly different when job-seekers under Groups

A, E and F are compared with those in Group A (p > .05). Perceptions are different

for those jobseekers in Group B who have viewed the website with treatment

condition 2 compared to Groups C, D, G and H which correspond to treatment

conditions 3, 4, 7 and 8 (MDs significant at p < .01) respectively. However,

perceptions are not significantly different when participants in groups A, E and F are

compared with those in Group B (p > .05). With respect to Group C (treatment 3),

Groups A, B, E, F and H contributed to different perception formation for intention to

apply at 99 % confidence level but Groups D and G are not able to create any

difference in jobseekers‘ intention to apply (p > .05).

As for those exposed to website corresponding to treatment 4 in Group D, perception

of applying for job is different compared to those who viewed treatments 1, 2, 5, 6

and 8 in Groups A, B, E, F and H (MDs significant at p < .01). Intention to apply for

Group E and Group F job-seekers is markedly different from that for job-seekers in

Group C, D, G and Group H at 99 % confidence level. Group G job-seekers have

different intention to apply compared to those in Groups A, B, E, F and H. Finally,

Group H is found to create difference in intention to apply at 95 % confidence level

for all other groups as well as having higher means compared to the other groups for

intention to apply,

204

Table 30: Post-Hoc Analysis Using Scheffe’s Procedure [Study 2]

Referent

group (I)

Comparison

group (J)

Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

Group A Group B -.01141 .15073 1.000

Group C -1.06409* .14858 .000

Group D -1.20319* .15585 .000

Group E -.18084 .15230 .985

Group F -.29129 .15230 .817

Group G -1.52986* .16246 .000

Group H -2.15839* .14490 .000

GroupB Group A .01141 .15073 1.000

Group C -1.05267* .14422 .000

Group D -1.19177* .15170 .000

Group E -.16943 .14805 .988

Group F -.27987 .14805 .827

Group G -1.51844* .15849 .000

Group H -2.14698* .14043 .000

Group C Group A 1.06409* .14858 .000

Group B 1.05267* .14422 .000

Group D -.13910 .14956 .997

Group E .88324* .14586 .000

Group F .77280* .14586 .000

Group G -.46577 .15645 .266

205

Group H -1.09431* .13812 .000

Group D Group A 1.20319* .15585 .000

Group B 1.19177* .15170 .000

Group C .13910 .14956 .997

Group E 1.02235* .15326 .000

Group F .91190* .15326 .000

Group G -.32667 .16336 .779

Group H -.95520* .14591 .000

Group E Group A .18084 .15230 .985

Group B .16943 .14805 .988

Group C -.88324* .14586 .000

Group D -1.02235* .15326 .000

Group F -.11044 .14965 .999

Group G -1.34902* .15998 .000

Group H -1.97755* .14211 .000

Group F Group A .29129 .15230 .817

Group B .27987 .14805 .827

Group C -.77280* .14586 .000

Group D -.91190* .15326 .000

Group E .11044 .14965 .999

Group G -1.23857* .15998 .000

Group H -1.86711* .14211 .000

Group G Group A 1.52986* .16246 .000

206

Group B 1.51844* .15849 .000

Group C .46577 .15645 .266

Group D .32667 .16336 .779

Group E 1.34902* .15998 .000

Group F 1.23857* .15998 .000

Group H -.62854** .15296 .020

Group H Group A 2.15839* .14490 .000

Group B 2.14698* .14043 .000

Group C 1.09431* .13812 .000

Group D .95520* .14591 .000

Group E 1.97755* .14211 .000

Group F 1.86711* .14211 .000

Group G .62854** .15296 .020

*p< .01, **p<.05

This suggests that the final treatment condition has the most desirable effect on job-

seekers‘ intention to apply. Only Group G can be considered to be the next best

website design with the mean difference with that of Group H being the lowest (MD =

.62854, p < .05).

Documents

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTSshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/68283/11... · list– one private university from Hyderabad, one private B-School from Delhi NCR and another privately