ContentServer 1 PDF

Academy of Management Journal
2014, Vol. 57, No. 2, 383404.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0848
WHY ARE JOB SEEKERS ATTRACTED BY CORPORATE

SOCIAL PERFORMANCE? EXPERIMENTAL AND FIELD TESTS
OF THREE SIGNAL-BASED MECHANISMS
DAVID A. JONES
University of Vermont
CHELSEA R. WILLNESS
University of Saskatchewan
SARAH MADEY
Digitas
Research on employee recruitment has shown that an organizations corporate social
performance (CSP) affects its attractiveness as an employer, but the underlying mechanisms and processes through which this occurs are poorly understood. We propose
that job seekers receive signals from CSP that inform three signal-based mechanisms
that ultimately affect organizational attractiveness: job seekers anticipated pride from
being affiliated with the organization, their perceived value fit with the organization,
and their expectations about how the organization treats its employees. We hypothesized that these signal-based mechanisms mediate the relationships between CSP and
organizational attractiveness, focusing on two aspects of CSP: an organizations community involvement and pro-environmental practices. In an experiment (n 180), we
manipulated CSP via a companys web pages. In a field study (n 171), we measured
CSP content in the recruitment materials used by organizations at a job fair and job
seekers perceptions of the organizations CSP. Results provided support for the signalbased mechanisms, and we discuss the implications for theory, future research, and
practice.
Research on employee recruitment has illuminated numerous factors that affect peoples attraction to an organization (Breaugh, 2008; Chapman,
Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005), including its corporate social performance (CSP): the
organizations commitment to principles, policies,
and practices relating to its social responsibilities
and relationships with stakeholders (Wood, 1991).
Studies suggest that organizations with strong CSP
can attract more applicants (e.g., Greening & Turban, 2000), but little is known about the underlying
processes.
Using signaling theory (Rynes, 1991) as an overarching framework, we tested hypotheses about
three signal-based mechanisms that mediate the
relationship between CSP and organizational attractiveness. We propose that CSP sends signals to
job seekers that inform their perceptions and expectations about the organization, and it is through
these signal-based mechanisms that CSP can ultimately influence job seekers attraction to the organization. We tested three mediating mecha-
nismsjob seekers anticipated pride from being

affiliated with a prestigious organization, perceived
value fit, and expected treatmentwith the goal of
providing a basis for developing a theory of CSP
and recruitment that can help guide future research. Recruiting organizations, too, might benefit
by leveraging the reasons why job seekers are attracted by CSP to increase their ability to hire topperforming employees.
We test these underlying mechanisms in two
studies using complementary methods. In Study 1,
we use an experimental design from which we can
draw causal inferences and test underlying mechanisms with a high degree of internal validity. In
Study 2, we test hypotheses in the field using a
sample of active job seekers who evaluated an organization that they identified as an attractive employment option, which to our knowledge is the
first such test in the literature. By means of the
designs of our studies, job seekers natural decision-making processes are allowed to unfold in a
more realistic manner than in most prior studies.
383
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holders express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
384
For instance, both of our studies incorporate processes through which job seekers likely come to
possess CSP information, as opposed to providing
participants with numerical ratings of CSP or asking them to evaluate information about a single
organization in which a CSP manipulation is
embedded.
We examine the effects of CSP pertaining to an
organizations community involvement and proenvironmental practices. Community involvement
includes philanthropy and support for employee
volunteerism (e.g., Grant, 2012). Pro-environmental
practices include policies to encourage employees
to conserve energy and resources, efforts to green
up the supply chain, and the promotion of environmental awareness (e.g., Christmann, 2000). We
tested the effects of these practices using three different operationalizations of CSP: an experimental
manipulation of web page content (Study 1), the
extent of CSP information in the recruitment materials used by organizations recruiting at job fairs
(Study 2), and job seekers perceptions of CSP
(Study 2).
Research on Corporate Social Performance
and Recruitment
Recruiting organizations attempt to attract workers by distinguishing themselves from other organizations (Rynes, 1991). Research shows that attitudes and behaviors relating to job choice are
influenced by job and organizational characteristics such as pay and location (Chapman et al.,
2005). However, there tends to be limited variability in such characteristics among organizations
competing for the same applicants, so they are not
always effective for distinguishing one organization from another (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).
Some practices pertaining to CSP, in contrast, reflect highly discretionary decisions about how an
organization allocates its resources that can therefore differentiate it from other potential employers.
Increasingly, organizational leaders view CSP
as a strategic means to address the ever-evolving
demands of stakeholders (Waddock, Bodwell, &
Graves, 2002), including prospective employees
(McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Research suggests
that companies with stronger CSP are perceived as
more attractive employers (Aiman-Smith, Bauer, &
Cable, 2001; Kim & Parke, 2011; Luce, Barber, &
Hillman, 2001; Schmidt Albinger & Freeman, 2000;
Tsai & Yang, 2010; Turban & Greening, 1997). Positive effects of CSP on recruitment outcomes have
April
also been found for the two aspects of CSP on

which we focus: community involvement (Backhaus, Stone, & Heiner, 2002; Sen, Bhattacharya, &
Korschun, 2006), and pro-environmental practices
(Backhaus et al., 2002; Bauer & Aiman-Smith, 1996;
Behrend, Baker, & Thompson, 2009; Greening &
Turban, 2000). By attracting more applicants, CSP
may increase selection system utility and an organizations ability to hire top performers (Boudreau &
Rynes, 1985).
However, the extent to which job seekers actually
possess information about CSP and how they come
to obtain it are largely unknown. In several prior
studies, researchers provided ratings of CSP to participants through expert ratings of real companies
(Schmidt Albinger & Freeman, 2000), ratings of a
fictitious company ostensibly from a third party
(Aiman-Smith et al., 2001), or ratings of multiple
companies based on the Kinder, Lydenburg, Domini and Co. database (Backhaus et al., 2002;
Greening & Turban, 2000, pilot study). While these
studies make important contributions, most job
seekers likely do not have CSP ratings at their disposal. People can sometimes be largely unaware of
an organizations CSP, which is a boundary condition that limits the effects of CSP on recruitment
outcomes (Sen et al., 2006). Accordingly, we believe it is important to test the effects of CSP using
study designs that incorporate plausible ways in
which job seekers learn about CSP. In Study 1, we
focus on company websites as a vehicle for communicating CSP. Both companies and applicants
increasingly turn to websites as sources of recruitment information (Cober, Brown, Keeping, & Levy,
2004), from which CSP information is readily available (Whitehouse, 2006). In Study 2, we focus on
CSP information to which job seekers were exposed
at a job faira setting used by recruiting organizations to provide information to job seekers and to
encourage them to apply (Murphy & Tam, 2004).
The context of our studies is an early recruitment
stage, which is important because early recruitment
practices affect the utility of later practices (Allen,
Mahto, & Otondo, 2007) and selection systems are
more effective when more people apply (Ployhart, 2006).
Signal-Based Mechanisms that Explain Why Job
Seekers are Attracted by CSP
In the recruitment literature, little attention has
been given to mediating mechanisms that are often
assumed, but rarely tested (Breaugh, 2008), and this
2014
Jones, Willness, and Madey
is also true of research on individuals responses to

CSP (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). As such, little is
known about how and why CSP relates to organizational attractiveness. We derived hypotheses about
underlying psychological mechanisms, using signaling theory as an overarching framework.
Signaling theory (Spence, 1973) has provided a
theoretical foundation for research in several literatures, such as marketing (e.g., Connelly, Ketchen,
& Slater, 2011) and strategic management (e.g.,
Zhang & Wiersema, 2011). For example, in their
study of marketing practices, Connelly et al. (2011)
argue that consumers, suppliers, and investors may
have difficulty assessing the extent to which a companys business processes or products are actually
sustainable; therefore external stakeholders may
use observable factors such as ISO 14000 certification, investments in green technology, or recycling
practices as signals about the organizations commitment to sustainability. Similarly, recruitment
researchers have argued that job seekers often have
little information about recruiting organizations, so
they rely on signals that they receive from whatever
information they do have to make inferences about
working conditions and other organizational characteristics (Rynes, 1991; Rynes & Miller, 1983).
Research shows that recruitment experiences do
indeed provide signals that affect job seekers attitudes and choices (e.g., Cable & Turban, 2003;
Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991), but signal-based
models used in recruitment research have been
criticized for being underdeveloped (Breaugh,
2008). In particular, the mechanisms that link signals to outcomesthe inferences that people draw
from signalsare rarely tested, or even specified
conceptually (Celani & Singh, 2010). Signaling theory has been used in some studies to develop hypotheses about the effects of CSP on recruitment
outcomes, but the precise signals and underlying
mechanisms are not well delineated beyond a few
studies drawing on person organization fit theory
(e.g., Greening & Turban, 2000). What signals, then,
do job seekers receive from an organizations CSP,
and what mechanisms might explain how this influences their attraction to the organization?
Among the various signals sent by an organizations community involvement and pro-environmental practices, we assert, are signals about the
organizations prestige, specific values, and prosocial orientation. In turn, these signals inform three
corresponding signal-based mechanisms that affect
organizational attractiveness: job seekers anticipated pride from being associated with a presti-
385
gious organization that is lauded for its CSP, perceived value fit in relation to the organizational
values demonstrated by CSP, and expected treatment by the organization given its prosocial efforts
to enhance the well-being of others through its CSP.
While we do not discount the existence of other
mechanisms, we focused on these particular mechanisms for three reasons that are reflected in the
rationale for our hypotheses. First, each signalbased mechanism logically follows from a signal
identified in past research as a probable signal sent
by CSP. Second, all three signal-based mechanisms
are grounded in well-developed theories that researchers have used to understand recruitment processes and reactions to CSP. Third, each signal-based
mechanism reflects something that job seekers and
employees value and desire from their employment
experience: to feel proud about being a member of
the organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), to work
in an organization that shares their values (Cable &
Judge, 1994), and to be treated well as an employee
(Hom, Griffeth, Palich, & Bracker, 1999). Given that
people are motivated to pursue favorable outcomes
(Vroom, 1964), these signal-based mechanisms help
to explain why job seekers are attracted to organizations that exhibit strong CSP.
Signals about organizational prestige that inform anticipated pride. An organizations reputation sends signals that affect the inferences job
seekers make about a potential employer (Cable &
Turban, 2003), and CSP affects organizational reputation (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). As such, researchers have argued that strong CSP signals to job
seekers that the organization is prestigious and
held in high regard by others (Behrend et al., 2009).
This signal, we propose, informs the pride that job
seekers anticipate from being associated with the
organization.
Grounded in social identity theory (Ashforth &
Mael, 1989; Collins & Han, 2004; Tajfel & Turner,
1992), we argue that the signal-based mechanism of
anticipated pride follows from a signal from CSP
about organizational prestige, in turn affecting a
potential employers attractiveness. People derive
some of their identity through their affiliations
with groups, including their employing organization (e.g., Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). Individuals are
especially apt to identify with an organization
when it enhances their self-worth (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008), such as when they feel proud
about its prestige (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Riketta,
2005). The concept of prestige highlights aspects of
an organizations reputation that are prone to so-
386
cially oriented considerations, such as how being

affiliated with it might garner social approval
(Highhouse, Lievens, & Sinar, 2003). As Highhouse,
Thornbury, and Little (2007: 142) describe: A
prestigious organization . . . seems superior to other
organizations in the industry, and is considered
impressive by others. Linking organizational prestige to anticipated pride, Smidts, Pruyn, and van Riel
(2001: 1051) noted that people feel proud of being
part of a well-respected organization, as it strengthens
their feelings of self-worth to bask in reflected glory.
Researchers have drawn on identity-based theories to develop hypotheses about the effects of
CSP on recruitment outcomes, but have not tested
specific mechanisms (e.g., Backhaus et al., 2002;
Greening & Turban, 2000; Turban & Greening,
1997). In one exception, Behrend et al. (2009)
found that a companys environmental message on
a website increased its organizational prestige
and, in turn, participants job pursuit intentions.
Extending these findings, in Study 1 we tested
whether anticipated pride mediates the effects of
two aspects of CSP community involvement and
pro-environmental practices on organizational attractiveness, above and beyond two other signalbased mechanisms. In Study 2, we tested the
mediating role of organizational prestige (the proposed signal), rather than anticipated pride (the
proposed signal-based mechanism), for reasons
that we later describe.
Hypothesis 1. The positive relationships between an organizations CSP pertaining to its
(a) community involvement and (b) pro-environmental practices and organizational attractiveness are mediated by anticipated pride
(tested in Study 1) and beliefs about organizational prestige (tested in Study 2).
Signals about organizational values that inform perceived value fit. More than a decade ago,
recruitment researchers recognized that an organizations CSP sends signals about its values, which
can enhance its attractiveness when people perceive a good fit with their own values (AimanSmith et al., 2001; Backhaus et al., 2002; Behrend
et al., 2009; Greening & Turban, 2000; Turban &
Greening, 1997). Using the language of our framework, an organizations CSP sends signals to job
seekers about its specific values, such as a commitment to contributing to the community or preserving the natural environment, and such signals inform a second signal-based mechanism that links
April
CSP to organizational attractiveness: job seekers

perceived value fit.
Meta-analytic evidence shows that person organization fit is among the strongest predictors of recruiting outcomes (Chapman et al., 2005). One type
of fit, supplementary fit (Kristof, 1996), emphasizes
an individuals perceived similarity with an organization, including the similarity in their values.
Studies show that people are more attracted to organizations when they perceive greater value fit
(Cable & Judge, 1994, 1996; Chatman, 1989; Holcombe Erhart & Ziegert, 2005), including one study
in which the effects of value fit were stronger than
those of other factors such as pay, promotion opportunities, and type of work (Judge & Bretz, 1992).
Support for the value fit mechanism has been
found in research on CSP and recruitment. In one
study, the effects of socially responsible practices
on students ratings of organizational attractiveness
were mediated by their perceptions of fit (Kim &
Parke, 2011). In another study, the relationship between CSP and organizational attractiveness was
stronger among people with greater environmental
sensitivity (Tsai & Yang, 2010). However, other
studies have not found that people who hold proenvironmental values are more attracted by environmentally friendly practices (Backhaus et al.,
2002; Bauer & Aiman-Smith, 1996; Behrend et al.,
2009; Greening & Turban, 2000). A possible explanation for these inconsistent findings is that the
studies in which support was not found focused on
environmental practices and assessed the fit mechanism using measures of environmental values or
attitudesmeasures that are known to be especially susceptible to socially desirable responding
(Ewert & Galloway, 2009). Accordingly, we extended the tests of the value fit mechanism to another aspect of CSP: an organizations community
involvement. Unlike most prior studies, we tested
whether CSP effects are mediated by a direct measure of perceived value fit (Kristof, 1996), and we
controlled for the effects of two other hypothesized
signal-based mechanisms.
(a) community involvement and (b) pro-environmental practices and organizational attractiveness are mediated by perceived value fit.
We also tested the perceived value fit mechanism
in Study 1 using individual differences corresponding to each aspect of CSP. Relating to an
organizations community involvement, individu-
2014
als who have more of a communal orientation have

stronger feelings of responsibility toward others
and are more likely to assist people in need (Clark,
Ouellette, Powell, & Milberg, 1987). We reasoned
that people with higher communal orientation will
be particularly attracted to an organization that
contributes positively to its community because
they will perceive a strong fit between their values
and those of the organization. Similarly, individuals who hold stronger pro-environmental attitudes
will be more attracted to an organization that engages in pro-environmental practices because they
will perceive a higher degree of value fit.
Hypothesis 3a. An organization that engages in
community involvement is more attractive to
individuals who are higher in communal orientation, and this relationship is mediated by
perceived value fit.
Hypothesis 3b. An organization that engages in
pro-environmental practices is more attractive
to individuals who hold stronger pro-environmental attitudes, and this relationship is mediated by perceived value fit.
Signals about prosocial orientation that inform
expected treatment. Another probable signal from
CSP is suggested by theory advanced to explain
why organizations expend resources to enhance
their CSP, as they might do, for example, in response to pressure from their employees to fulfill
obligations relating to CSP (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007). Aguilera et al. (2007)
argue that employees view externally directed CSP
(e.g., community involvement and pro-environmental practices) as indicative of the organizations
overall concern for the just treatment of others.
Building on this notion, we assert that CSP sends a
signal to job seekers about the organizations overall prosocial orientation (i.e., its genuine care and
concern for the well-being of others; Grant, Dutton,
& Rosso, 2008). In turn, this signal informs a signalbased mechanism that we label as expected treatment, i.e., job seekers expectations about how favorably the organization treats its employees and
by extension, how favorably they would be treated
if they worked there. Presumably, job seekers may
conclude that organizations that care about people
in general likely extend this care to their own employees by treating them fairly, with dignity and
respect, and in accordance with how they expect to
be treated.
387
To our knowledge, this expected treatment

mechanism has not been discussed in the context
of the effects of CSP on recruitment outcomes.
Other recruitment research, however, suggests that
people develop attitudes about an employer before
they even start working (Wanous, 1992), including
attitudes about its concern for employees (Hom et al.,
1999). Studies also suggest that personable recruiters
can send signals to job seekers from which they infer
that the organization will treat them well (Breaugh &
Starke, 2000), and we propose a similar signal-based
mechanism driven by the signal that CSP sends about
the organizations prosocial orientation.
Although a variety of practices relating to CSP
may send a signal about an organizations prosocial
orientation, we speculate that community involvement will provide a particularly pertinent signal. A
signal about an organizations concern for others
follows more directly from its community involvement than its pro-environmental practices because
giving back to the community sends a signal that it
cares about people, as opposed to the environment
in which they live, and this signal logically extends
to the people whom the organization employs.
(a) community involvement and (b) pro-environmental practices and organizational attractiveness are mediated by individuals expectations about favorable employee treatment.
STUDY 1: METHOD
Participants
Participants were 180 senior undergraduate students from a university in Western Canada who
received bonus course credit for their participation.1 Only students in the third year of their program or higher were eligible to take part because
these students have more work experience and
were more likely to be seeking employment at the
time of the study. Their average age was 22.56 years
1
Earlier versions of both studies were published in the

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management (Study 1: Jones, Willness, & MacNeil, 2009;
Study 2: Jones, Willness, & Madey, 2010). These earlier
versions were based on the same samples and included
the same measures that are reported in this article, with
two exceptions: the earlier version of Study 1 did not
include anticipated pride, and the measure of expected treatment included five additional items.
388
(SD 4.65) and 80.56% were female. Their average

years of work experience was 5.83 (SD 4.52); 121
were employed at the time of the study, with an
average tenure of 23.85 months (SD 20.87) and
averaging 16.79 hours at work per week (SD 10.98).
Procedure
Study 1 was a longitudinal experiment. We collected data over two sessions separated by 1 week
to reduce priming effects that may have resulted
from responding to items about recruiting organizations CSP and related individual differences in a
single session. We told participants they were completing two separate studies. We asked them to
generate an identification number to assign their
bonus credit after they completed both studies,
which we used to match their data from Times 1
and 2. At Time 1, we told participants that the first
study was about peoples values and political beliefs, and we embedded individual difference measures relating to CSP in a survey that started and
ended with items about political beliefs.
At Time 2, we asked participants to review web
pages ostensibly downloaded from three companies
websites and printed on paper. We counterbalanced
the order so that each companys pages appeared
either first, second, or third for exactly one third of
the participants in each CSP condition. We instructed
participants to pretend as though you are currently
looking for a job and that you are suitable for at least
one of the jobs advertised by each company.
Company web pages. We created web pages for
three fictitious companies that were manufacturers
and distributors of clothing, with job openings in
the city where we collected data. Several job openings were listed for each company, and included
attainable positions in merchandising, retail, technical design, product testing, and marketing. The
web pages were designed to appear real and included web addresses on each page, links to the
companys other web pages, pictures, professionallooking layouts, and company logos. We embedded
a CSP manipulation in the pages of a target company, and we used the web pages for two other
companies to enhance realism and to reduce demand characteristics because job seekers typically
consider a subset of available employment options,
rather than one (e.g., Beach, 1993; Soelberg, 1967).
We conducted a pilot study to help us refine the
web page materials to make the three companies comparably attractive when no CSP information was
present, and to assess whether the web pages ap-
April
peared realistic. Participants in the pilot study were

undergraduate students (n 74) from a university in
the Northeastern United States, and we followed the
same procedure reported for the Time 2 data collection in Study 1. We then asked participants to provide verbal feedback about the realism of the web
pages. Based on this feedback, and the ratings of
organizational attractiveness, we altered the wording
of the web page materials to increase their realism
and to make the companies comparably attractive
when no CSP information was present.
CSP manipulation. We randomly assigned 60
participants to each of three CSP conditions in
which the target companys web pages either contained information about its community involvement (CSP-Community), its pro-environmental
practices (CSP-Environment), or neither (NoCSP). The web page content (e.g., company size,
products, and history) for the target company was
identical across conditions except for the addition
of a We Care page about its CSP in the two CSP
conditions. The information about CSP-Community focused on philanthropic donations and an
employee volunteerism program, and similar wording about CSP-Environment was used to describe
the companys ecologically related philanthropy
and employee involvement in energy reduction
and recycling (see Appendix).2
Measures
Individual differences. The Time 1 survey began and ended with items about political beliefs
(e.g., Societys problems will work themselves out
without the government interfering). We measured Communal orientation using Clark et al.s
(1987) 14-item measure and a response scale from 1
(Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree, e.g., When
making a decision, I take other peoples needs and
feelings into account). We used the same scale to
measure Pro-environmental attitudes, with six
items adapted from Bauer and Aiman-Smith
(1996): I really care about the environment, I
have been known to take steps to help to preserve
the environment, The environment is important
2
In the No-CSP condition, the target companys four
web pages included 358 words, and the four pages for
each of the other two companies included 479 and 530
words. The target companys CSP was described on a
fifth page, resulting in 595 and 587 total words in the
CSP-Community and CSP-Environment conditions,
respectively.
2014
to me, I am very passionate about environmental

issues, I take steps to reduce my impact on the
environment, even when it inconveniences me,
and The health of the planet matters more to me
than almost any other cause.
Company evaluations at Time 2. After providing demographic and work experience information,
participants completed measures about each company after reviewing its pages. We measured Anticipated pride using three items from Cable and Turban (2003), rated on a scale from 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree): I would feel proud
to be an employee of [company], I would be
proud to tell others that I work for [company], and
I would be proud to identify myself personally
with [company]. We measured Perceived value fit
on the same scale via three items from Cable and
DeRue (2002): [Company]s values and culture
provide a good fit with the things that I value in
life, The things that I value in life are very similar
to the things that [company] values, and My personal values match [company]s values and culture. To measure Expected treatment, we created
five items and used a response scale from 1
(Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Given our
focus on the organizations overall treatment of employees, we followed an approach used to measure
overall justice (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009) and
included items about employees in general ([Company] probably treats its employees well), and
about the individual respondent (I think [company] would treat me well). Because theory suggests that CSP sends signals about an organizations
concern for the just treatment of others (Aguilera et
al., 2007), we included an item about fairness ([Company] probably treats its employees fairly). Two
other items focused on day-to-day treatment: Employees are probably treated with dignity and respect
at [company], and If I worked at [company], I could
trust them to fulfill the promises they make.
We measured the dependent variable, Organizational attractiveness, using Highhouse et al.s
(2003) five-item measure and a five-point agreement
response scale (e.g., [Company] is attractive to me as
a place for employment). We then administered manipulation check items embedded within several distractors (e.g., [Company] has been in existence for a
long time) using a 17 agreement scale: [Company]
makes an effort to reduce its impact on the environment, and [Company] tries to contribute positively
to the communities in which it does business. Last,
participants were asked to rank the three companies
and explain their top choice for employment, and to
389
rate their engagement in the study and the realism of

the web pages.
Assessment of measures. We assessed study
measures using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
After allowing the error terms to covary among five
item-pairs for Communal orientation, the fit of a sixfactor model to the data was good: the 2/df ratio of
1.65 was lower than 2.00, the incremental fit index
(IFI) and comparative fit index (CFI) values of .91
exceeded the .90 threshold recommended by some
researchers (Kline, 2005), and the root-mean-square
error of approximation (RMSEA) was .06 (Browne &
Cudeck, 1993). Sequential 2 difference tests showed
that the six-factor model fit the data significantly better than several alternative models and provided evidence that the three mediators were distinct.
STUDY 1: RESULTS
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, internal consistency estimates, and correlations among
study variables. Table 2 displays tests of mean differences among the CSP conditions, including omnibus
analyses of variance and contrasts between all pairs
of conditions on the three hypothesized mediators
and organizational attractiveness.
Manipulation Checks, Participant Engagement,
and Web Page Realism
Responses to the manipulation check item about
the companys community involvement were significantly higher in the CSP-Community condition
(M 6.27, SD .97), than in the CSP-Environment
(M 5.62, SD .83; t(118) 8.28, p .001) and
No-CSP (M 4.17, SD 1.08, t(118) 11.22,
p .001) conditions. Similarly, the manipulation
check item about environmental practices was
rated significantly higher in the CSP-Environment
condition (M 6.40, SD .94), than in the CSPCommunity (M 4.68, SD 1.48, t(118) 7.58,
p .001) and No-CSP (M 3.90, SD 1.02,
t(118) 13.94, p .001) conditions. Participants
also perceived the web pages to be realistic and
were engaged in their roles as job seekers: the
means on a 7-point agreement scale exceeded 5.50
for The information from the companies web
pages looked like it was from real web pages
(M 5.73, SD 1.24), I really tried to imagine that
I was looking for a job (M 5.57, SD 1.05), and
If I were actually looking for a job, Id like to read
information from company websites like I did in
this study (M 5.82, SD 1.38).
390
April
TABLE 1
Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Internal Consistency Estimates
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
CSP-Community vs. No-CSP

CSP-Environment vs. No-CSP
Communal orientation
Pro-environmental attitudes
Anticipated pride
Perceived value fit
Expected treatment
Organizational attractiveness
SD
0.50
0.50
5.42
4.89
3.59
3.67
5.16
3.64
0.50
0.50
0.59
1.06
0.86
0.83
0.90
0.85
0.00
0.03
0.13
0.43***
0.57***
0.46***
0.44***
0.09
0.07
0.30**
0.46***
0.28**
0.23*
(0.78)
0.13
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.01
(0.89)
0.23**
0.23**
0.12
0.15*
(0.93)
0.71***
0.66***
0.59***
(0.93)
0.59***
0.66***
(0.92)
0.54***
(0.92)
Note. n 180, except for variables 1 and 2 (n 120), which were constructed by dummy coding two experimental conditions to
represent the effect of the presence (coded 1) versus absence (coded 0) of CSP information; internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbachs
alphas) are presented in parentheses on the diagonal.
*p .05
**p .01
***p .001
ful: When comparing the target company in the

No-CSP condition to the two other companies, no
differences were found on organizational attractiveness: F(2,118) .46, p .05.
We performed a 3 3 chi-square analysis of CSP
condition by the target companys rank from 1 (the
top choice) to 3. The target companys rankings differed by condition as expected, 2 50.60, p .001:
80.00% and 73.33% of participants ranked the target
company first when its web pages included information about CSP-Community and CSP-Environment,
respectively, while only 23.33% ranked it first when
no CSP information was present.
Relationships between CSP and Organizational

Attractiveness
Table 2 shows that organizational attractiveness
was significantly higher in both CSP conditions
than in the No-CSP condition. We also examined
participants rank-ordering of the three employment options because job seekers typically apply to
a subset of available positions and they presumably
accept the offer made by their highest ranked option. We compared the rank of the target company
when its web pages did versus did not contain CSP
information. Recall that we used the pilot study to
refine the web pages so the three companies
would be comparably attractive when no CSP
information was present to reduce the influence
of unfair comparisons (Cooper & Richardson,
1986). Within-subjects analyses of variance
(ANOVAs) showed that our efforts were success-
Testing Multiple Mediator Models

We analyzed multiple mediator models to test
the indirect effects of the presence versus absence
TABLE 2
Study 1 Mean Differences among CSP Conditions on Ratings of the Target Company: Anticipated Pride, Perceived
Value Fit, Expected Treatment, and Organizational Attractiveness
1. CSP-Community
2. CSP-Environment
3. No-CSP
t-test
Variable
SD
SD
SD
p2
1 vs. 3
2 vs. 3
1 vs. 2
Anticipated pride
Perceived value fit
Expected treatment
3.93
4.09
5.57
4.04
0.92
0.75
0.81
0.81
3.65
3.81
5.20
3.63
0.82
0.68
0.86
0.76
3.18
3.10
4.72
3.25
0.67
0.71
0.83
0.81
13.21***
30.76***
15.75***
14.95***
0.13
0.26
0.15
0.15
5.12***
7.46***
5.68***
5.37***
3.46**
5.57***
3.13**
2.61*
1.75
2.17*
2.42*
2.91**
Note. n 180; df for F-tests 2, 177; p2 (partial eta squared) is the effect size for analysis of variance tests across the three conditions;
df for t-tests 118.
*p .05
**p .01
***p .001
2014
391
TABLE 3
Study 1 Results of Mediation Tests Predicting Organizational Attractiveness: Indirect Effects of CSP-Community and
CSP-Environment through Three Mediators, and Indirect Effects of Individual Differences through Perceived Value Fit
BC 95% CI
Estimate
Indirect Effects
Total indirect effect of CSP condition
Unique indirect effects through:
1. Anticipated pride
2. Perceived value fit
3. Expected treatment
SE
BC 95% CI
Lower
Upper
Predictor: CSP-Community vs. No-CSP

Conditions (n 120)
SE
Lower
Upper
Predictor: CSP-Environment vs. No-CSP

Conditions (n 120)
0.70
0.14
0.43
0.99
0.46
0.11
0.25
0.71
0.47
0.22
0.01
0.13
0.12
0.06
0.25
0.01
0.11
0.75
0.47
0.14
0.27
0.21
0.02
0.10
0.08
0.04
0.11
0.07
0.09
0.50
0.40
0.05
Predictor: Communal orientation,

tested within the CSP-Community
condition (n 60)
Indirect effect through perceived value fit
Estimate
0.34
0.18
0.02
0.73
Predictor: Pro-environmental attitudes,

tested within the CSP-Environment
condition (n 60)
0.11
0.05
0.03
0.24
Note. The indirect effects of CSP condition were tested by dummy coding two experimental conditions to represent the effect of the
presence (coded 1) versus absence (coded 0) of CSP information; BC 95% CI refers to the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval; Estimate
refers to the effect estimate using 5,000 bootstrap samples; estimates with CIs that do not include zero are statistically significant and
bolded; gender, age, and work experience were controlled.
of CSP information on organizational attractiveness

through the three hypothesized mediators while controlling for age, gender, and months of work experience. We tested each indirect effect while controlling
for the other two, which is important for testing theory and building parsimonious explanatory models
(Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Testing multiple mediators
together also reduces parameter bias owing to omitted
variables (Judd & Kenny, 1981).
Preacher and Hayes (2008) recommended the use
of bootstrapping to test multiple mediator models
and we used their regression-based macro for SPSS.
Following their recommendations, we report bootstrap estimates derived from 5,000 bootstrap samples along with bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals, and we modeled the direct effect of CSP
information on organizational attractiveness. Table 1 shows that the presence versus absence of
each type of CSP information had a significant positive relationship with organizational attractiveness; thus we make inferences about mediation
based on the tests of indirect effects, which are
presented in Table 3. Coefficients for the paths that
are illustrated in Figure 1 are presented in Table 4.
We hypothesized that anticipated pride (Hypothesis 1), perceived value fit (Hypothesis 2), and expected treatment (Hypothesis 4) mediate the effects
of CSP on organizational attractiveness. For the
effect of CSP-Community versus No-CSP condi-
tions, Table 3 shows that Hypotheses 1a and 2a

were supported, and Table 4 shows that the four
paths associated with mediated effects through anticipated pride and perceived value fit were significant. Hypothesis 4a, however, was not supported;
Table 4 shows that the path between CSP-Community and expected treatment was significant, but
the latter was not significantly related to organizational attractiveness. For CSP-Environment, we
found the same pattern of significance and support
for Hypotheses 1b, 2b, and 4b3 that we found for
CSP-Community (see Tables 3 and 4).
To supplement the tests of Hypothesis 2 about
the perceived value fit mechanism, we tested Hypothesis 3, which specified that an organization
known for its community involvement or pro-environmental practices is more attractive to individuals who are higher on conceptually related individual differences, and that these relationships are
mediated by perceived value fit. Thus, within each
CSP condition, we tested whether the positive relationship between the individual difference variable and organizational attractiveness was medi-
Post hoc analyses showed that, for both aspects of CSP,

the indirect effects through expected treatment were significant when anticipated pride was removed from the model.
Results are available from the first author.
392
April
FIGURE 1
A Multiple Mediator Model of the Effects of CSP-Community and CSP-Environment on
Organizational Attractiveness
Anticipated
Pride (Study 1) or
Organizational
Prestige (Study2)
5
1
Perceived
2
Value Fit
Corporate Social
Organizational
Performance
Attractiveness
7
Expected
Treatment
FIGURE 1
Note. Results from the tests of indirect effects in Studies 1 and 2 are presented in Tables 3 and 7, respectively, and path estimates are
presented in Table 4.
ated by perceived value fit. Table 3 shows that both

Hypotheses 3a and 3b were supported.
Corroborating Evidence from a Content Analysis
of Participants Ranking Rationales
One of the authors, who was blind to experimental condition, performed a content analysis of participants written rationales for their top-ranked
employer of choice among the three companies.
The results presented in Table 5 suggest that the
CSP information in the web pages played a prominent role in participants choices for their topranked employer. Among the 48 participants in the
CSP-Community condition who ranked the target
company as their first choice, 41 (85.42%) mentioned the companys community involvement
when explaining why they ranked this company as
their top choice. Among the 44 participants in the
CSP-Environment condition who chose the target
company, 40 (90.91%) mentioned the companys
environmental practices when explaining why they
ranked the target company first.
The results in Table 5 also provide evidence for
the proposed mechanisms underlying the effects of
CSP on organizational attractiveness. First, some
participants in the CSP conditions mentioned the

reputation and prestige of the target company in
their rationale for ranking it first, although they
did not explicitly link these points to CSP, and a
few participants in the No-CSP condition also
made such points. Second, among those who
ranked the target company first, 20.83% in the CSPCommunity condition and 25.00% in the CSP-Environment condition wrote about the companys
prosocial values, three of whom commented on the
fit with their own values; however, no participants in
the No-CSP condition mentioned such points. Third,
whereas no participants in the No-CSP condition
mentioned that the company likely treats its employees well, around 20% of the participants in the two
CSP conditions did mention this, often explicitly
linking their points to the companys CSP as illustrated in the quotes presented in Table 5.
STUDY 2
Study 1 results provided support for two of the
three hypothesized mediators for both aspects of
CSP. We extended prior research by testing underlying psychological mechanisms, but like all prior
studies, our findings illustrate only how people
2014
393
TABLE 4
Path Coefficients from Tests of Multiple Mediator Models in Studies 1 and 2
Study 1 (n 120)
CSP Condition vs. No-CSP
Study 2 (n 171)
Perceived CSP
Path as Represented in Figure 1
Community
Environment
1. CSP Anticipated pride (Study 1) or

Organizational prestige (Study 2)
2. CSP Perceived value fit
3. CSP Expected treatment
4. CSP Organizational attractiveness
5. Anticipated pride (Study 1) or
Organizational prestige (Study 2)
6. Perceived value fit Organizational
attractiveness
7. Expected treatment Organizational
attractiveness
Model R2
0.75***
0.48***
0.26***
0.99***
0.85***
0.10
0.63***
0.71***
0.47**
0.10
0.58***
0.18*
0.37***
0.16**
0.29**
0.22*
0.01
0.30**
0.03
0.69***
0.53***
Community
Environment
0.04
0.14*
0.14*
0.15**
0.29**
Study 2 (n 153)
CSP in Recruitment
Materials
Community
Environment
0.11
0.02
0.25**
0.17*
0.09
0.22*
0.06
0.05
0.10
0.22*
0.40***
0.40***
0.47***
0.47***
0.16*
0.16*
0.14*
0.15*
0.51***
0.51***
0.50***
0.50***
Note. In Study 1, gender, age, and work experience were controlled; in Study 2, familiarity with the organization and the other aspect
of CSP were controlled.
*p .05
**p .01
***p .001
respond to CSP in a fictitious context. Thus, in

Study 2, we examined the effects of CSP among
active job seekers who evaluated organizations that
were recruiting at a job fair. Differing from Study 1,
in Study 2 we tested the effects of each aspect of
CSP while controlling for the other, and we did so
using measures of job seekers perceptions of CSP,
as well as independent ratings of CSP based on the
recruitment materials used by the organizations at
the job fair.
A unique strength of Study 2 is that we asked job
seekers to evaluate an organization that they independently identified as a realistic and desirable
employment option, and we did not provide them
with CSP information. We believe this approach
accurately models the potential effects of CSP because people do not always know much about an
organizations CSP (Sen et al., 2006). Moreover, job
choice decisions are driven by comparisons among
a favored subset of the available options (Osborn,
1990), and this process is unlikely to be modeled
well when researchers choose the organizations
that participants evaluate, usually after being
given ratings of CSP. Our approach is also quite
stringent because we test the effects of CSP in the
context of other job and organizational characteristics that the job seekers found attractive enough to
deem an organization as a preferred employment
option, thereby allowing any compensatory and

non-compensatory decision-making processes to
unfold naturally.
In Study 1, we found that anticipated pride mediated the effects of CSP on organizational attractiveness; we used a different approach in Study 2.
We asserted that CSP sends signals about the organizations prestige, which informs anticipated
pride. However, it is possible that the anticipated
pride in Study 1 was driven by other signals from
CSP, such as signals about the organizations social
impact. Thus, in Study 2, we tested the mediating
effect of organizational prestige in lieu of anticipated pride that we tested in Study 1.
STUDY 2: METHOD
Participants
Participants were 171 job seekers who attended a
job fair (58 males and 113 females; M 21.16 years
of age; SD 3.85). Most were undergraduate students (n 155; graduate students: n 14; nonstudents: n 2), averaging 4.73 years of work experience (SD 3.33). Several participants were
already employed (n 95), but were working only
16.46 hours per week (SD 11.17), on average.
Many participants reported that they had been
394
April
TABLE 5
Study 1 Content Analysis of Participants Rationale for Ranking the Target Company as their First Employment Choice:
Frequencies and Percentages of Participants by CSP Condition whose Rationale was Coded in each Content Category
Participants Who Ranked the Target
Company First
Content
Category
No-CSP
n 14/60
CSP-Community CSP-Environment
n 48/60
n 44/60
Community involvement
1 (7.14%)
41 (85.42%)
10 (22.73%)
Environmental practices
2 (14.29%)
3 (6.25%)
40 (90.91%)
Reputation and prestige
3 (21.43%)
5 (10.42%)
6 (13.64%)
Prosocial values and

value fit
10 (20.83%)
11 (25.00%)
Employee treatment
9 (18.75%)
9 (20.45%)
Training and benefits
5 (10.42%)
3 (6.82%)
Other values
8 (57.14%)
8 (16.67%)
10 (22.73%)
Workplace climate
8 (57.14%)
5 (10.42%)
8 (18.18%)
Job characteristics
6 (42.86%)
6 (12.50%)
5 (11.36%)
Overall company
6 (42.86%)
4 (8.33%)
11 (25.00%)
Examples of Coded Statements
Because they are committed to giving back to the

community. I like to know that the company I work
for is socially responsible. Fusion on the other hand
is close as it is committed to employee development
which is attractive as well, but had no info on
community investment.
I really like how they are so involved with the
community. Giving people paid time off work to
volunteer is amazing.
Active Style Incs environmental position made it
stand out from the other companies. I would feel
comfortable working for a company that values
protecting the environment.
Active Style claims they are committed to
environmental sustainability. They also believe that
business should be about more than just making
money. They have donated 2% of after tax revenues
to eco friendly organizations.
They seem to be prestigious and successful.
Active Style sounds like a more prestigious company.
I liked that it gave back to the community and not all
of its focus was on low cost of production followed
by largest profit. It seemed like a company with good
values and to be successful as well.
This company cares for its customers, employees, and
the environment as well. It is also expanding. It
shows similar values to me so it appears the most
attractive.
Seems to be a company that cares about its employees
and the community. Philanthropic activities are
GREAT . . . I think this company would value and
appreciate me.
If a company cares a lot about the environment it most
likely cares a lot about its employees.
The company is growing so its wages will probably
grow with it.
I like that they strive to make customers needs a
priority.
It seems like a young energetic environment and an
elite place to work. It would probably be fun!
There were opportunities to grow as an employee and
person (through volunteering) and good job
positions.
The description was most appealing because the
company is moderately large (stable) and expanding.
Note. A participants rationale was coded within a content category if it included one or more explicit statements of relevant content.
2014
seeking employment for several months prior to

attending the job fair (M 5.29; SD 6.29).
Field Study Context: Organizations Recruiting at
Job Fairs
We collected data during two 3-hour job fairs
held at a Northeastern U.S. university, one in November 2008 (50 organizations) and the other in
March 2009 (51 organizations), which were open to
the general public. The recruiting organizations represented industries that included engineering, technology, agriculture, nonprofit, and government. Each
organization had a table staffed by one to four recruiters where they displayed recruitment materials,
most often comprising a large poster and handouts
for job seekers. Based on the recruitment materials
we examined, the CSP-Community practices described by some organizations included programs to
support and encourage employee volunteering in
the community (e.g., Meals on Wheels, mentoring
programs, child advocacy programs), donationmatching, awareness-raising (e.g., about health initiatives), and sponsorship of community events.
CSP-Environment practices mentioned in the recruitment materials included the use of recycled or
eco-friendly materials, sustainable practices in supply chains, donations and employee volunteerism
to support environmental causes, advocating for
environmental protection and preservation, and efforts to reduce the organizations environmental
impact.
Procedure
At both job fairs, the researchers were located by
the exit and job seekers were invited to complete a
survey printed on paper. All participating job seekers were offered a chocolate bar or food product
of comparable value in return for their time. We
wanted participants to evaluate an organization in
which they were realistically interested to increase
the likelihood that they had reviewed the organizations recruitment materials and talked to its recruiters, and thus held informed opinions about the
organizations CSP and its attractiveness as an employer. However, we wanted to minimize range
restriction in variables such as organizational attractiveness, so we counterbalanced whether participants focused their ratings on their top choice
for employment (n 88, Please indicate your top
choice among the organizations and companies
that are recruiting at this job fair) or on some other
395
realistic choice (n 83, Please write the name of

a company or organization for which you are realistically interested in working for, but which is not
your top choice. If possible, choose one that is
toward the bottom of your realistic choices
among those that are recruiting at this job fair).
We did not control for top versus other choice,
because doing so would undermine the reason we
manipulated it: to obtain sufficient variance in the
measures.
Measures
CSP content in recruitment materials. A research assistant (RA) rated the organizations recruitment materials for the extent of CSP-Community and CSP-Environment content. During the job
fairs, the RA recorded brief notes and preliminary
ratings of CSP content in recruitment posters and
other displays, and obtained recruitment handouts
when available. The RA examined the handouts
immediately after the job fairs and recorded final
ratings of CSP content across all recruitment materials on a scale from 1 (No CSP content) to 4 (A lot
of CSP content). The sample size for analyses of
these measures was 153 because nine people
did not name the organization they rated and some
recruiters left before their materials had been
reviewed.
Perceived CSP. We created four-item measures
for each aspect of perceived CSP using a rating
scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly
agree). The CSP-Community items were: This
company gives back to its community (locally, nationally, and/or internationally), This company
takes part in voluntary or charitable activities,
This company is active in helping its community, and This company tries to have a positive
influence on its community. The CSP-Environment items were: This company has good environmental policies, This company is concerned
about environmental sustainability, This company tries to reduce its impact on the environment, and This company is an environmentally
friendly company.
Mediators and criterion. We used the same measures as in Study 1 for perceived value fit, expected
treatment, and organizational attractiveness. We
measured Organizational prestige using a five-item
measure with a 5-point agreement scale from Highhouse et al. (2003), e.g., I would find this company
a prestigious place to work.
396
Assessment of measures. Table 6 displays descriptive statistics, internal consistency estimates,

and correlations. A CFA showed that the fit of a
six-factor model to the data was reasonable to good:
the 2/df ratio was 2.06, the IFI and CFI values were
.91, and the RMSEA value was .08. All factor loadings were significant (p .001) and in the expected
directions, and the standardized loadings ranged
from .52 to .93. Model comparisons showed that
the six-factor model fit the data significantly better
than several alternative models, which provided
support for the distinctiveness of study constructs.
STUDY 2: RESULTS
Relationships between CSP and Organizational
Attractiveness
Like we did in Study 1, we used multiple mediator models to test each hypothesized mediator
while controlling for the indirect effects through
the other two mediators. We also controlled for a
single-item measure of familiarity with the organization (Before this job fair, I knew something
about this company) because it has been linked to
recruitment outcomes (Chapman et al., 2005) and
was significantly correlated with organizational attractiveness and other measures (see Table 6). We
used the same bootstrapping and modeling approach described for Study 1, with one important
exception: In Study 2, we tested hypotheses about
each aspect of CSP while controlling for the other
aspect of CSP. Results are presented in Table 7 and
April
the coefficients for the paths in Figure 1 are reported in Table 4.

Table 7 shows that the total indirect effect of job
seekers perceived CSP-Community on organizational attractiveness was significant, as were its
unique indirect effects through all three hypothesized mediators. Importantly, these findings
were replicated using the other measure of CSPCommunity: the independent ratings based on
the organizations recruitment materials. Thus,
Hypotheses 1a, 2a, and 4a about the three mediating mechanisms were supported. However, Table 7
shows a markedly different pattern of results for the
indirect effects of CSP-Environment: None were
significant, including the indirect effects of perceived CSP-Environment through perceived value
fit and expected treatment, even though all of the
associated path coefficients were significant (see
Table 4).
DISCUSSION
Evidence from a growing number of studies suggests that an organizations CSP can affect its attractiveness as an employer, but the underlying processes are not well understood, and whether this
can even be observed among active job seekers is
still unknown. We tested the effects of two forms of
externally directed CSP: an organizations community involvement and pro-environmental practices.
In Study 1, we manipulated the presence and type
of information about CSP on a company website,
TABLE 6
Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Internal Consistency Estimates
Variable
1. Familiarity with the organization
2. CSP-Community (recruitment
materials)
3. CSP-Environment (recruitment
materials)
4. CSP-Community (perceived)
5. CSP-Environment (perceived)
6. Organizational prestige
9. Organizational attractiveness
SD
3.19 1.48
2.66 1.21 0.10
2.25 1.27 0.20*
0.54***
5.17
4.67
3.79
3.52
4.98
3.62
0.32***
0.27**
0.20*
0.35***
0.23**
0.20*
1.30
1.41
0.79
0.98
1.05
0.96
0.12
0.13
0.22**
0.11
0.14
0.17*
0.25** (0.88)
0.50*** 0.68*** (0.93)
0.15
0.48*** 0.37*** (0.86)
0.25**
0.38*** 0.37*** 0.59*** (0.91)
0.18*
0.60*** 0.51*** 0.47*** 0.47*** (0.87)
0.25**
0.32*** 0.42*** 0.55*** 0.64*** 0.48*** (0.87)
Note. n 171, except for correlations involving CSP in recruitment materials (variables 2 and 3; n 153); internal consistency estimates
(Cronbachs alphas) are presented in parentheses on the diagonal.
*p .05
**p .01
***p .001
2014
397
TABLE 7
Study 2 Results of Mediation Tests Predicting Organizational Attractiveness: Indirect Effects of CSP-Community and
CSP-Environment through Organizational Prestige, Perceived Value Fit, and Expected Treatment
CSP-Community
CSP-Environment
BC 95% CI
BC 95% CI
Indirect Effects
Estimate
SE
Lower
Upper
Estimate
SE
Lower
Upper
Total indirect effect: Perceived CSP

Total indirect effect: CSP in
recruitment materials
0.20
0.06
0.08
0.33
0.09
0.06
0.01
0.21
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.17
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.13
0.27
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.08
0.13
0.02
0.12
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.07
0.21
0.07
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.10
0.04
Note. n 171 for analyses of perceived CSP; n 153 for analyses of CSP in recruitment materials; BC 95% CI refers to the bias-corrected
95% confidence interval; Estimate refers to the effect estimate using 5,000 bootstrap samples; estimates with CIs that do not include zero
are statistically significant and bolded; familiarity with the organization and the other form of CSP were controlled.
and the results provide evidence that CSP has a

causal effect on organizational attractiveness. In
Study 2, we collected field data at job fairs, and
found that job seekers were more attracted to organizations that they perceived as having stronger
CSP-Community and this relationship was replicated
using independent ratings of CSP based on the content of the organizations recruitment materials. To
our knowledge, these results offer the first evidence
that the effects of CSP that experimental studies have
shown can happen actually do happen.
We also contribute to the literature by developing
and testing theory about three signal-based mechanisms through which CSP affects organizational
attractiveness to explain how and why CSP is attractive to job seekers. We asserted that CSP sends
signals about organizational prestige that inform
the pride that job seekers anticipate from being
affiliated with the organization, signals about organizational values that inform job seekers perceived value fit, and signals about the organizations prosocial orientation that inform job seekers
expectations about how employees are treated. Evidence from two studies using three different operationalizations of CSP provided support for all three
signal-based mechanisms.
Effects of Community Involvement versus
Pro-Environmental Practices
In Study 1, we tested each aspect of CSP on its
own, and both aspects had significant indirect ef-
fects on organizational attractiveness through anticipated pride and perceived value fit. In Study 2,
however, we tested each aspect of CSP while controlling for the other. Using either measure of
CSP-Communityjob seekers perceptions of it or
independent ratings based on recruitment materialswe found support for unique indirect effects
through all three mediators. In contrast, we found no
support for any mediator in the tests of CSP-Environment, despite its significant correlations with the mediators and organizational attractiveness. Controlling
for CSP-Community appears to have suppressed any
potential indirect effects of CSP-Environment, which
had weaker correlations with all three mediators
compared to CSP-Community.
The extent to which the organizations that job
seekers selected to evaluate engaged in one or both
aspects of CSP might have contributed to this suppression effect. In Study 2, two-thirds of the job
seekers (65.36%) evaluated an organization whose
recruitment materials referred to neither or both
aspects of CSP, which may reflect common causes
for the adoption of both types of practices, such as
the extent that organizational leaders view them
as strategic investments (see Pedersen, 2010). This
finding suggests that the strong correlation between
the perceptual measures of the two aspects of CSP
reflects true covariance in their occurrence in
these organizations, but it nonetheless increases
the potential for suppression effects. Moreover,
only 7.19% of the job seekers evaluated organiza-
398
tions whose recruitment materials contained CSPEnvironment content but no CSP-Community content. As such, most of the variance in CSPEnvironment that was associated with the presence
of pro-environmental practices likely overlapped
with the variance associated with the presence of
practices pertaining to CSP-Community. In contrast, 27.45% of the job seekers evaluated organizations whose recruitment materials referred only to
CSP-Community, so there was relatively more variance in the measures of CSP-Community associated
with the presence of such practices that would not
have overlapped with the corresponding variance
in CSP-Environment, thereby allowing the indirect
effects of CSP-Community to emerge even when
controlling for CSP-Environment. This possibility
highlights that, when multiple aspects of CSP are
tested in the same models, the results might be
influenced by the true extent to which those practices co-occur within the organizations involved,
and should therefore be interpreted in that context.
Effects of Corporate Social Performance through
Prestige and Anticipated Pride
In Study 1, we found that both aspects of CSP
were associated with higher organizational attractiveness through anticipated pride. It was plausible, however, that this signal-based mechanism
was driven not by a signal about organizational
prestige, as we argued, but by other signals from
CSP (e.g., about the organizations social impact).
Thus, in Study 2, we tested the mediating effect of
organizational prestigethe signal that we proposed would inform the signal-based mechanism of
anticipated prideand found support for it as one
of three mediators of the effects of CSP-Community
on organizational attractiveness.
Future research should examine whether the anticipated pride that attracts some individuals to a
particular organization continues to have an effect
after they are hired. One study showed that incumbent employees who felt greater pride in their
organizational membership as a result of their
attitudes toward their employers volunteerism
program tended to identify with the organization
more strongly, which in turn was positively associated with loyalty-related citizenship behavior
and intentions to remain in the organization (Jones,
2010). These findings, coupled with those from the
present studies, raise an intriguing possibility: Job
seekers attracted by CSP through anticipated pride
resulting from the organizations prestige may ulti-
April
mately become the employees who respond most

positively to CSP after they are hired.
Perceived Value Fit
We found considerable support for the perceived
value fit mechanism. In Study 1, both aspects of
CSP were associated with organizational attractiveness through perceived value fit, above and beyond
the effects associated with the two other mechanisms. Analyses of participants rationales for their
top-ranked company showed that several of them
mentioned organizational values relating to CSP.
Empirical analyses of individual difference measures also provided support for the fit mechanism:
Among participants exposed to information about
either aspect of CSP, those who were higher on the
corresponding measure of communal orientation or
pro-environmental attitudes rated the organization
as more attractive, and these effects were mediated
by perceived value fit. In Study 2, both measures of
CSP-Community had significant indirect effects on
organizational attractiveness through perceived
value fit.
Contrary to our findings, several prior studies
did not find support for the value fit mechanism
using individual difference measures relating to
pro-environmental attitudes (Backhaus et al., 2002;
Bauer & Aiman-Smith, 1996; Behrend et al., 2009;
Greening & Turban, 2000). We speculated that this
may have resulted from the use of measures of
environmental attitudes that are especially susceptible to socially desirable responding (Ewert &
Galloway, 2009), yet we found support for the
value fit mechanism in Study 1 using such a measure. Nonetheless, socially desirable responding
should be controlled in future research because our
findings suggest that perceived value fit is an important mechanism. Future studies should also test
whether this mechanism is affected by a signal
from CSP about the organizations prosocial orientation, which we proposed as a signal that informs
expected treatment.
Expected Treatment
Results from Study 2 provided support for the
expected treatment mechanism for the effects of
CSP-Community. In Study 1, analyses of participants reasons for ranking the target company as
their employer of choice showed that about 20% in
2014
each CSP condition made reference to how employees are likely treated, sometimes explicitly linking
employee treatment to CSP, whereas no such comments were made in the No-CSP condition. However, the empirical analyses in Study 1 did not
provide support for the expected treatment mechanism above and beyond the two other hypothesized mediators, although post hoc analyses
showed that it was supported for both aspects of
CSP when anticipated pride was removed from the
models. This pattern of results suggests that because participants did not have prior beliefs about
the fictitious company, its CSP sent strong signals
about its prestige that ultimately led to relatively
strong effects through anticipated pride, which
overpowered any potential effects through expected treatment. Research is needed to better understand the influence of prior beliefs about organizational reputation in this context.
Study Limitations
The relatively young ages of the participants in
our samples may call the generalizability of our
results into question, but it does not diminish the
relevance of these samples because many companies explicitly tailor their recruitment efforts to
attract college-aged students (Dineen & Noe, 2009).
It is currently unknown whether younger job seekers are relatively more or less attracted by CSP,
which should be examined in future research. Also
unknown is whether our findings based on early
stages of recruitment extend to later stages. One
study showed that recruitment information presented at job fairs still influences job seekers during
the later stages of recruitment (Saks & Uggerslev,
2010), but more research on this topic is needed.
A limitation of Study 1 is that the web pages for
the target company contained less information and
fewer positive statements in the No-CSP condition
than in the two CSP conditions, in which we added
information about CSP. As such, the effects of CSP
that we attributed to the signals that it sent may
have instead been the result of people having a
better feel for the company because they were
exposed to more information, or of the addition of
positive statements that enhanced organizational
attractiveness much like any positive statements
about the company might have done. These possibilities also apply to Study 2: Organizations that
communicated CSP information may have merely
communicated more information overall, and more
positive information, thereby increasing their at-
399
tractiveness to job seekers. We ruled out these alternative explanations for several reasons, the most
compelling of which is the pattern of results from
our studies. Qualitative data from Study 1 and empirical evidence from both studies using three different operationalizations of CSP provide considerable support for our inference that CSP affects
organizational attractiveness through the signalbased mechanisms that we tested.
Toward a Signal-Based Theory of Corporate
Social Performance and Recruitment
Signals from CSP might help to distinguish an
organization. Findings from Study 1 suggest that
the target companys CSP helped to distinguish it
from the other companies. While less than a third
of the people in the No-CSP condition ranked the
target company first, most people in the CSP conditions did rank it first, with more than 85% of
them mentioning the companys CSP in their rationales for selecting it as their top choice. Some
participants specifically referred to how the companys CSP set it apart from the others, as illustrated in the first and third quotes reported in Table 5. Table 5 also shows that people who were not
exposed to CSP information were more likely to
mention points about work climate, job characteristics, and the overall company compared to people who learned about the companys CSP and
usually mentioned it in their rationales. These
results suggest an intriguing possibility to test in
future research: When job seekers receive signals
that clearly differentiate an organization, they
may be apt to draw particularly strong inferences
from it while giving little consideration to other
available information but in the absence of
such distinguishing signals, job seekers might
give more consideration to the available information that they might have otherwise largely
ignored.
Different aspects of CSP might send different
signals. The effects of signals from CSP and the
signal-based mechanisms appear to depend on the
nature of the CSP practices. In Study 1, the indirect
effect through anticipated pride was considerably
stronger for CSP-Community than for CSP-Environment, and this difference was also observed in the
tests of organizational prestige in Study 2. We speculate that job seekers will tend to perceive an
organizations community involvement as relatively less helpful for the bottom line, and
hence as more commendable and prestige-worthy
400
compared to pro-environmental practices that are

more clearly tied to business objectives such as cost
reduction. For the expected treatment mechanism,
we found support in Study 2 for the effects of
CSP-Community, but not CSP-Environment. We
anticipated a relative difference because, compared
to pro-environmental practices, community involvement provides particularly pertinent signals
about how the organization treats people overall,
which we noted extends quite logically to its employees. Researchers should test whether signals
about employee treatment follow more directly
from CSP practices that are more people-oriented
(e.g., community involvement, diversity practices,
employee relations) relative to practices that are
less so (e.g., product safety, corporate governance).
In contrast to the anticipated pride and expected
treatment mechanisms, indirect effects through
perceived value fit in Study 1 were relatively equal
for the two aspects of CSP.
Research is needed to test other potential signals
that job seekers may receive from CSP, such as
signals about the organizations financial stability
or growth potential, the likelihood of receiving
higher or lower than average pay, and the kinds of
people who work there. Researchers should also
investigate whether the signal-based mechanisms
that we tested adequately explain the effects of
other aspects of CSP. For instance, consistent with
the signals and mechanisms that we tested, CSP
relating to an organizations ethical conduct likely
sends signals about its ethical values, which inform
job seekers perceived value fit (Zhang & Gowan,
2012). But CSP about ethical practices might also
send signals that inform mechanisms not captured
by our framework, such as signals about an organizations climate (Zhang & Gowan, 2012) from
which job seekers infer, for example, whether cutthroat sales tactics would be encouraged, tolerated, or rejected.
The strength of signals from CSP depends on
the context. The strength of any signal in a recruitment context presumably depends on the extent to
which the perceiver already has information about
the organization (Celani & Singh, 2010). For instance, signals from CSP are unlikely to have much
effect on expected treatment among job seekers
who already possess knowledge about working
conditions and employee treatment (e.g., through
friendships with incumbent employees). All signalbased effects may be weaker when job seekers possess
more information about a potential employer, which
will likely occur as they move through later stages of
April
recruitment. Even the nature of the signals people

received from CSP may differ as job seekers progress
through the stages of the recruitment process, with
instrumental attributes such as compensation being
more important early on and symbolic meanings such
as the organizations prosocial orientation being more
important later (Celani & Singh, 2010).
Other boundary conditions of effects through signal-based mechanisms need to be studied. For example, the anticipated pride mechanism may be
weaker among those who have lower needs for
social approval and self-esteem, the value fit
mechanism may be weaker among those who
do not internalize CSP-relevant values, and the
expected treatment mechanism is likely weaker
among job seekers who are less sensitive to fair
treatment from the organization. All three mechanisms may be weaker when job seekers attribute
CSP to disingenuous motives.
Other Future Research and Implications
for Practice
To the extent these results generalize to applicant
decision making, CSP might have meaningful effects on the size of an organizations applicant pool
and selection system utility (Boudreau & Rynes,
1985). People usually apply only to a subset of the
jobs in which they are interested and typically accept only one job offer. Thus, our finding that participants who learned about a companys CSP overwhelmingly ranked it as their top choice highlights
the potential benefits of leveraging CSP during
recruitment.
Companies may benefit from communicating
CSP initiatives on their websites, recruitment materials, and via recruiters. We informally reviewed
the websites of several Fortune 500 companies and
noticed that, even among companies that celebrate
their CSP, many do not mention CSP on the careers and job openings web pages; doing so may
be an opportunity for companies to attract top talent. Job seekers must first be aware of an organizations CSP to receive any signals from it, so organizations might benefit from communicating their
CSP, and perhaps making the signals from CSP
explicit. To leverage signals about prestige and the
resulting anticipated pride, organizations could
promote external recognition or rewards that they
receive for CSP. To enhance signals that inform
perceptions of value fit, recruiters could explain
the links between company values and their CSP
practices (e.g., We care about our communities,
2014
and thats why we encourage our employees to

volunteer during regular work hours). To strengthen
signals about prosocial orientation that inform expectations about employee treatment, recruiting messages could link CSP to these signals explicitly (e.g.,
We care about the well-being of the environment
and the well-being of our employees).
A practically important question for future research is whether CSP affects applicant pool characteristics: It may be that CSP not only attracts
more applicants, but better applicants. Schmidt Albinger and Freeman (2000) found that companies
CSP was particularly related to attraction among
individuals who were completing an MBA versus
non-student unemployed individuals; presumably,
the MBA participants would have a greater number
of job choice options. It is possible, then, that individuals who have the opportunity to choose from
among multiple employment options may use CSP
to distinguish between potential employers. In
future studies, researchers should measure general mental ability, conscientiousness, and other
predictors of job performance to test the effects of
CSP on applicant pool quality. Our results suggest that CSP can give organizations a competitive advantage by attracting a larger applicant
pool from which to draw talent, and we hope that
future research on the questions and topics that
we have described will illuminate when, how,
and why CSP is associated with positive recruitment outcomes.
REFERENCES
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi,
J. 2007. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32:
836 863.
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. 2012. What we know and dont
know about corporate social responsibility: A review
and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38:
932968.
Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T. N., & Cable, D. M. 2001. Are
you attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A recruiting
policy-capturing study. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 16: 219 237.
Allen, D. G., Mahto, R. V., & Otondo, R. F. 2007. Webbased recruitment: Effects of information, organizational brand, and attitudes toward a web site on
applicant attraction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1696 1708.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. 2009. The role of overall
401
justice judgments in organizational justice research:

A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94: 491500.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008.
Identification in organizations: An examination of
four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325374.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory
and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20 39.
Backhaus, K. B., Stone, B. A., & Heiner, K. A. 2002.
Exploring the relationship between corporate social
performance and employer attractiveness. Business
and Society, 41: 292318.
Bauer, T. N., & Aiman-Smith, L. 1996. Green career
choices: The influences of ecological stance on recruiting. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10:
445 458.
Beach, L. R. 1993. Image theory: An alternative to normative decision theory. Advances in Consumer Research, 20: 235238.
Behrend, T. S., Baker, B. A., & Thompson, L. F. 2009.
Effects of pro-environmental recruiting messages:
The role of organizational reputation. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 24: 341350.
Boudreau, J. W., & Rynes, S. L. 1985. Role of recruitment
in staffing utility analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 354 366.
Breaugh, J. A. 2008. Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and important areas for future research. Human
Resource Management Review, 18: 103118.
Breaugh, J. A., & Starke, M. 2000. Research on employee
recruitment: So many studies, so many remaining
questions. Journal of Management, 26: 405 434.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. 1993. Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equation models: 136
162. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. 2002. The convergent and
discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 875 884.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. 1994. Pay preferences and job
search decisions: A person organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47: 317348.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. 1996. Person organization
fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 67: 294 311.
Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. 2003. The value of organizational image in the recruitment context: A brand
equity perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33: 2244 2266.
402
Celani, A., & Singh, P. 2010. Signaling theory and applicant attraction outcomes. Personnel Review, 40:
222238.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin,
K. A., & Jones, D. A. 2005. Applicant attraction to
organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review
of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90: 928 944.
April
Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. 2008. Giving

commitment: Employee support programs and the
prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 898 918.
Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. 2000. Corporate social
performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a
quality workforce. Business and Society, 39: 254
280.
Chatman, J. A. 1989. Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person organization fit.
Academy of Management Review, 14: 333349.
Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. 2003. Measuring

attraction to organizations. Educational Psychological Measurement, 63: 986 1001.
Christmann, P. 2000. Effects of best practices of environmental management on cost advantage: The role
of complimentary assets. Academy of Management
Journal, 43: 663 680.
Highhouse, S., Thornbury, E. E., & Little, I. S. 2007.

Social-identity functions of attraction to organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103: 134 146.
Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S.

1987. Recipients mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
53: 94 103.
Holcombe Erhart, K., & Ziegert, J. C. 2005. Why are individuals attracted to organizations? Journal of Management, 31: 901919.
Cober, R. T., Brown, D. J., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E.

2004. Recruitment on the net: How do organizational
web site characteristics influence applicant attraction? Journal of Management, 30: 623 646.
Collins, C. J., & Han, J. 2004. Exploring applicant pool
quantity and quality: The effects of early recruitment
practice strategies, corporate advertising, and firm
reputation. Personnel Psychology, 57: 685717.
Connelly, B. L., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Slater, S. F. 2011.
Toward a theoretical toolbox for sustainability research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 39: 86 100.
Cooper, W. H., & Richardson, A. J. 1986. Unfair comparisons. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 179 184.
Dineen, B. R., & Noe, R. A. 2009. Effects of customization
on application decisions and applicant pool characteristics in a web-based recruitment context. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94: 224 234.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on
the mirror: The role of image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management
Journal, 34: 517554.
Ewert, A., & Galloway, G. 2009. Socially desirable responding in an environmental context: Development
of a domain specific scale. Environmental Education Research, 15: 5570.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. 1990. Whats in a name?
Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 233258.
Grant, A. M. 2012. Giving time, time after time: Work
design and sustained employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37: 503523.
Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., Palich, L. E., & Bracker, J. S.

1999. Revisiting met expectations as a reason why
realistic job previews work. Personnel Psychology,
52: 97112.
Jones, D. A. 2010. Does serving the community also serve
the company? Using organizational identification
and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83: 857 878.
Jones, D. A., Willness, C. R., & MacNeil, S. 2009. Corporate social responsibility and recruitment: Person-organization fit and signaling mechanisms. In G. T.
Solomon (Ed.), Proceedings of the 69th Annual
Meeting of the Academy of Management, vol. 1:
1 6. Chicago: Academy of Management.
Jones, D. A., Willness, C. R., & Madey, S. 2010. Why are
job seekers attracted to socially responsible companies? Testing underlying mechanisms. In L. A.
Toombs (Ed.), Proceedings of the 70th Annual
Meeting of the Academy of Management, vol. 1:
1 6. Chicago: Academy of Management.
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1981. Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5: 602 619.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. 1992. Effects of work values on
job choice decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 261271.
Kim, S., & Parke, H. 2011. Corporate social responsibility
as an organizational attractiveness for prospective
public relations practitioners. Journal of Business
Ethics, 103: 639 653.
Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and practice of structural
equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Kristof, A. L. 1996. Person organization fit: An integra-
2014
403
tive review of its conceptualization, measurement,

and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49: 150.
plicant reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25: 351365.
Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. 2003. The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a companys attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology,
56: 75102.
Schmidt Albinger, H., & Freeman, S. J. 2000. Corporate

social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. Journal
of Business Ethics, 28: 243253.
Luce, R. A., Barber, A. E., & Hillman, A. J. 2001. Good

deeds and misdeeds: A mediated model of the effect
of corporate social performance on organizational
attractiveness. Business and Society, 40: 397 415.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. 2006. The

role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34: 158 166.
Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their

alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model
of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 103123.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26: 117127.
Murphy, K. R., & Tam, A. P. 2004. The decisions job
applicants must make: Insights from a Bayesian perspective. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 12: 66 74.
Osborn, D. P. 1990. A reexamination of the organizational choice process. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
36: 45 60.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, C. B. M. 2001. The

impact of employee communication and perceived
external prestige on organizational identification.
Academy of Management Journal, 49: 10511062.
Soelberg, P. O. 1967. Unprogrammed decision making.
Industrial Management Review, 8: 19 29.
Spence, M. 1973. Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87: 355374.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. 1992. An integrative theory of
intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel
(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations: 33 47. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Pedersen, E. R. 2010. Modelling CSR: How managers

understand the responsibilities of business towards
society. Journal of Business Ethics, 91: 155166.
Tsai, W. C., & Yang, I. W. F. 2010. Does image matter to

different job applicants? The influences of corporate
image and applicant individual differences on organizational attractiveness. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 18: 48 63.
Ployhart, R. E. 2006. Staffing in the 21st century: New

challenges and strategic opportunities. Journal of
Management, 32: 868 897.
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. 1997. Corporate social

performance and organizational attractiveness.
Academy of Management Journal, 40: 658 672.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2008. Asymptotic and

resampling strategies for assessing and comparing
indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40: 879 891.
Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York:

Wiley.
Riketta, M. 2005. Organizational identification: A metaanalysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 358
384.
Rynes, S. L. 1991. Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire
consequences: A call for new research directions. In
M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 2:
399 444. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Gerhart, B. 1991. The
importance of recruitment in job choice: A different
way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44: 487521.
Rynes, S. L., & Miller, H. E. 1983. Recruiter and job
influences on candidates for employment. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 68: 147154.
Saks, A. M., & Uggerslev, K. L. 2010. Sequential and
combined effects of recruitment information on ap-
Waddock, S. A., Bodwell, C., & Graves, S. B. 2002. Responsibility: The new business imperative. Academy of Management Executive, 16: 132148.
Wanous, J. P. 1992. Organizational entry: Recruitment,
selection, orientation and socialization of newcomers (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Whitehouse, L. 2006. Corporate social responsibility:
Views from the frontline. Journal of Business Ethics, 63: 279 296.
Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited.
Academy of Management Review, 16: 691718.
Zhang, L., & Gowan, M. A. 2012. Corporate social responsibility, applicants individual traits, and organizational attraction: A person organization fit perspective.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 27: 345362.
Zhang, Y., & Wiersema, M. F. 2011. Stock market reaction
to CEO certification: The signaling role of CEO background. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 693
710.
404
APPENDIX
Study 1 Web Page Content about CSP
CSP-Community Condition
At Active Style, we are committed to contributing to
the communities we touch. We pride ourselves on being
an industry leader with a number of cutting-edge programs designed to contribute to our communities. When
our customers buy Active Style clothing and apparel,
they are not just wearing great clothestheyre wearing
clothes that reflect our shared values about supporting
our community.
Community philanthropy. We believe that business
should be about more than just making moneywe believe it is our responsibility to consider our impact on
our communities in all the decisions we make. Since
2001, weve donated 2% of our annual after tax revenues
to nonprofit organizations, such as the United Way and
local food banks.
Employee volunteering. Through our ActiveVolunteer program, all employees can take up to 30 hours of
paid leave per year to volunteer in the non-profit organization of their choice. Our employees serve various nonprofits, such as Habitat for Humanity and AIDS Walk, and
they volunteered over 10,000 hours in financial year 2007.
For 3 years running, the percentage of employees who
volunteer through the program has increased by 10 13%.
Based on the recommendations of a 2006 employee task
force, we started a Clothes for Kids program through which
we match each article of clothing our employees donate by
donating a comparable article of Active Style clothing.
Check out our ActiveVolunteer information to see some of
our initiatives in your community!
CSP-Environment Condition
At Active Style, we are committed to our environmental sustainability principles. We pride ourselves on being
an industry leader with a number of cutting-edge environmentally friendly practices and programs. When our
customers buy Active Style clothing and apparel, they
are not just wearing great clothestheyre wearing
clothes that reflect our shared values about protecting
our environment.
Eco logical philanthropy. We believe that business
should be about more than just making moneywe believe it is our responsibility to promote environmental
awareness and to consider our impact on the environ-
April
ment in all the decisions we make. Since 2001, weve

donated 2% of our annual after-tax revenues to ecofriendly organizations, such as the Sierra Club and Care2.
Employee-driven sustainability. Through our EcoAction program, our employees lead the way by creating
and implementing creative programs, which have resulted in an 11% reduction of non-recycled waste company-wide in financial year 2007. For 3 years running,
we have reduced our energy consumption by 10 13%.
Last year, we implemented three recommendations developed by our employee task forces on eco-protection.
We now use only recycled paper throughout the company, all meeting rooms have been converted to be paperless, and all offices participate in energy-free
weekends where we close the offices and turn off and
unplug all non-essential computers and equipment.
Check out our EcoAction information to see some of our
initiatives in your community!
David A. Jones (dajones@uvm.edu) is an associate professor at the School of Business Administration, University of Vermont. He received his PhD in industrial and
organizational psychology from the University of Calgary. His research focuses on organizational justice, revenge in the workplace, and how employees and job
seekers respond to an organizations socially and environmentally responsible practices.
Chelsea R. Willness (willness@edwards.usask.ca) is an
assistant professor at the Edwards School of Business
and associate faculty at the School of Environment and
Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan. She received
her PhD in industrial and organizational psychology
from the University of Calgary. Her research interests
include community-engaged scholarship, and how organizations environmental practices and community involvement affect reputation, recruitment, employee engagement, and consumer behavior.
Sarah Madey (sarah.madey@digitas.com) is an account
manager at Digitas, a global integrated brand agency. She
received her MBA from Babson College. Her professional
focus is on strategic brand and message development,
business-to-business services marketing, and digital media marketing strategies.
Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.

ContentServer 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ContentServer 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management Journal

2014, Vol. 57, No. 2, 383404.

WHY ARE JOB SEEKERS ATTRACTED BY CORPORATE

nismsjob seekers anticipated pride from being

Academy of Management Journal

also been found for the two aspects of CSP on

Jones, Willness, and Madey

is also true of research on individuals responses to

Academy of Management Journal

cially oriented considerations, such as how being

CSP to organizational attractiveness: job seekers

Jones, Willness, and Madey

als who have more of a communal orientation have

To our knowledge, this expected treatment

Earlier versions of both studies were published in the

Academy of Management Journal

(SD 4.65) and 80.56% were female. Their average

peared realistic. Participants in the pilot study were

Jones, Willness, and Madey

to me, I am very passionate about environmental

rate their engagement in the study and the realism of

Academy of Management Journal

CSP-Community vs. No-CSP

ful: When comparing the target company in the

Relationships between CSP and Organizational

Testing Multiple Mediator Models

Jones, Willness, and Madey

Predictor: CSP-Community vs. No-CSP

Predictor: CSP-Environment vs. No-CSP

Predictor: Communal orientation,

Predictor: Pro-environmental attitudes,

of CSP information on organizational attractiveness

tions, Table 3 shows that Hypotheses 1a and 2a

Post hoc analyses showed that, for both aspects of CSP,

Academy of Management Journal

ated by perceived value fit. Table 3 shows that both

participants in the CSP conditions mentioned the

Jones, Willness, and Madey

Path as Represented in Figure 1

1. CSP Anticipated pride (Study 1) or

respond to CSP in a fictitious context. Thus, in

option, thereby allowing any compensatory and

Academy of Management Journal

Reputation and prestige

Prosocial values and

Training and benefits

Examples of Coded Statements

Because they are committed to giving back to the

Jones, Willness, and Madey

seeking employment for several months prior to

realistic choice (n 83, Please write the name of

Academy of Management Journal

Assessment of measures. Table 6 displays descriptive statistics, internal consistency estimates,

the coefficients for the paths in Figure 1 are reported in Table 4.

Jones, Willness, and Madey

Total indirect effect: Perceived CSP

and the results provide evidence that CSP has a

Academy of Management Journal

mately become the employees who respond most

Jones, Willness, and Madey

Academy of Management Journal

compared to pro-environmental practices that are