| Literature DB >> 31379686 |
Marieke Carpentier1, Greet Van Hoye1, Qingxiong Weng2.
Abstract
This study examines how social media pages can be used to influence potential applicants' attraction. Based on the uses and gratifications theory, this study examines whether organizations can manipulate the communication characteristics informativeness and social presence on their social media page to positively affect organizational attractiveness. Moreover, we examine whether job applicants' sought gratifications on social media influence these effects. A 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design is used. The findings show that organizations can manipulate informativeness and social presence on their social media. The effect of manipulated informativeness on organizational attractiveness depends on the level of manipulated social presence. When social presence was high, informativeness positively affected organizational attractiveness. This positive effect was found regardless of participants' sought utilitarian gratification. Social presence had no significant main effect on organizational attractiveness. There was some evidence that the effect of social presence differed for different levels of social gratification.Entities:
Keywords: informativeness; organizational attractiveness; recruiting; social media; social presence; uses and gratifications
Year: 2019 PMID: 31379686 PMCID: PMC6646858 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01669
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Measures and Items of the Manipulation Check and Study Variables.
| Variables | Items |
|---|---|
| Perceived informativeness | I think this page gave an accurate picture of the organization |
| This WeChat account provided information that is relevant for people who are looking for a job | |
| This page provided detailed information about the organization as a potential employer | |
| Perceived social presence | I felt addressed in a warm way by this account |
| There was a sense of human contact in the WeChat account | |
| I had the feeling that I was interacting with another person | |
| Organizational attractiveness | This organization would be a good place to work for me |
| I think this organization is an attractive employer | |
| A job with this organization appeals to me | |
| Utilitarian gratification | I use WeChat … |
| … to get timely information | |
| … to get information to help me make important decisions | |
| … to get the information that I am interested in | |
| … to obtain useful information | |
| Social gratification | I use WeChat … |
| … because it allows me to get others’ opinions and advice | |
| … because it allows me to express my ideas | |
| … to see what other people say | |
| … to meet new people | |
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Cronbach Alphas.
| Pearson Correlations | |||||||
| Variable name | Mean | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Organizational attractiveness a | 3.19 | 0.93 | (0.86) | |||
| 2. | Utilitarian gratification a | 3.94 | 0.85 | 0.30∗∗ | (0.87) | ||
| 3. | Social gratification a | 3.58 | 0.91 | 0.40∗∗ | 0.48∗∗ | (0.78) | |
| 4. | Manipulated informativeness | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.31∗∗ | 0.08 | 0.10 | |
| 5. | Manipulated social presence | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.02 | -0.09 | 0.08 | 0.02 |
Organizational Attractiveness per Condition: Means, Standard Deviations, Sample Sizes, and Mean Differences.
| Condition | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low SP Low Inf | Low SP High Inf | High SP Low Inf | ||||
| Low SP - Low Inf | 3.05 | 0.92 | 48 | |||
| Low SP - High Inf | 3.30 | 0.86 | 50 | 0.25 | ||
| High SP - Low Inf | 2.75 | 0.79 | 48 | -0.30 | -0.55∗∗ | |
| High SP - High Inf | 3.63 | 0.92 | 54 | 0.58∗∗ | 0.33 | 0.88∗∗ |
FIGURE 1(A) Interaction effect of informativeness and social presence on organizational attractiveness (social presence as moderator: 0 = low social presence, 1 = high social presence). The difference in organizational attractiveness between high and low informativeness is only significant when social presence is high. (B) Interaction effect of informativeness and social presence on organizational attractiveness (informativeness as moderator: 0 = low informativeness, 1 = high informativeness). The difference in organizational attractiveness between low and high social presence is never significant.
Results of Moderation Analysis Process Macro: Interaction Informativeness and Utilitarian Gratification.
| Organizational attractiveness | ||
|---|---|---|
| B | 95% CI | |
| Manipulated informativeness | 0.62 | [0.353;0.895] |
| Utilitarian gratification | 0.31 | [0.125;0.502] |
| Manipulated informativeness x utilitarian gratification | 0.097 | [-0.282;0.475] |
| 0.198∗∗ | ||
Results of Moderation Analysis Process Macro: Interaction Social Presence and Social Gratification.
| Organizational attractiveness | ||
|---|---|---|
| B | 95% CI | |
| Manipulated social presence | -0.02 | [-0.288;0.255] |
| Social gratification | 0.45 | [0.303;0.588] |
| Manipulated social presence × social gratification | 0.33 | [0.049;0.62] |
| 0.181∗∗ | ||
FIGURE 2Interaction effect of manipulated social presence and social gratification on organizational attractiveness. GSOC = social gratification. The lines displayed are for the value of 1 SD above and below the mean of the moderator. The slope of the full line is never significant. The dotted line is only significant when the moderator (social gratification) is 1.6 SD below the mean. For this value: gradient of simple slope = –0.50, t = –1.971, p = 0.050 (Dawson, 2013, 2018).