do procedural justice perceptions in a selection testing

125

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2004 34 1 pp 125-145Copyright copy 2004 by V H Winston amp Son Inc All rights reserved

Do Procedural Justice Perceptions in a Selection Testing Context Predict Applicant Attraction and

Intention Toward the Organization

CARL P MAERTZ JR1 TALYA N BAUERDepartment of Management Department of Management

and Information Systems Portland State UniversityMississippi State University

DONALD C MOSLEY JR RICHARD A POSTHUMADepartment of Management Department of MarketingUniversity of South Alabama and Management

University of Texas El Paso

MICHAEL A CAMPIONDepartment of Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Purdue University

This study examines the effects of procedural justice perceptions on outcomes in an actualselection context with applicants taking a general mental ability test to gain employmentas utility meter readers Applicant attraction and intention related to the organization weremeasured at 3 time periods This allowed us to control for initial levels of outcome vari-ables and the passndashfail result when assessing procedural justice effects Procedural justiceperceptions modestly predicted organizational attractiveness and intention prior to passndashfail feedback However the procedural justice effects on these outcomes were diminishedafter controlling for the passndashfail result Either changes in R2 or regression coefficientsassociated with procedural justice perceptions failed to achieve significance for all out-comes We discuss the implications of these findings for procedural justice research andfor employment managers

With many organizations using written ability tests for hiring (RoweWilliams amp Day 1994) applicant reactions to such tests are highly relevant toorganizational research (Smither Reilly Millsap Pearlman amp Stoffey 1993)Despite the notable validity and utility of written ability tests (Hunter amp Hunter1984) more than one third of Americans seem to have unfavorable attitudestoward such tests (Schmit amp Ryan 1997) For instance cognitive ability tests are

1Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Carl P Maertz Jr who is now atDepartment of Management Saint Louis University 3674 Lindell Boulevard St Louis MO 63108E-mail maertzcpsluedu

126 MAERTZ ET AL

often seen as less fair than interviews reacutesumeacute evaluations or work samples(Rynes amp Connerley 1993 Steiner amp Gilliland 1996) but more fair than person-ality or honesty tests (Steiner amp Gilliland 1996 cf Chan 1997 Rosse Miller ampStecher 1994)

An important question for managers and researchers is whether such percep-tions of fairness in an employment-testing situation affect applicant outcomesimportant to the organization (eg Macan Avedon Paese amp Smith 1994) Inthe past several methodological shortcomings inhibited the definitive answeringof this question (Bauer Maertz Dolen amp Campion 1998) Addressing theseshortcomings Bauer et al found that the influence of procedural justice percep-tions on organizational attractiveness and intention toward the organization weresignificant when controlling for initial levels of these outcomes but diminishedwhen passndashfail result was controlled statistically Bauer et al suggest that proce-dural justice perceptions may not have a significant effect on criteria after appli-cants learn whether they passed or failed an employment test Managers areunlikely to change a testrsquos passndashfail criterion simply to accommodate applicantreactions Thus the Bauer et al findings suggest that increasing the perceivedfairness of selection testing might be ineffective for improving post-feedbackapplicant attraction and intention toward the organization outcomes important tomanagers This suggestion is rather controversial given the considerable effortdevoted to studying procedural justice in selection settings (eg Bauer et al2001 Gilliland 1993)

The Bauer et al study is the only published study to suggest that the effects ofthe selection (passndashfail) result may ldquowash outrdquo the effects of procedural justiceperceptions on organizational outcomes Other studies have demonstrated consis-tently the importance of procedural justice perceptions on criteria even consid-ering the distributive outcome (eg Bies Martin amp Brockner 1993 Brockneret al 1994 Folger amp Konovsky 1989 Gleason amp Roberts 1997) In fact Baueret al (2001) found that the higher order factors (not scales) of social and struc-tural procedural justice predicted intention to recommend the organization evenafter controlling for passndashfail result on a cognitive ability test

However Bauer et al (2001) used students applying for a fictitious job in afictitious organization The outcome of passing versus failing had no tangiblecosts for the respondent and it could have been discounted easily as only part ofan experiment Thus the passndashfail outcome was not as powerful an influence oncriteria as it would have been in an actual employment test Therefore only astudy with actual job applicants can fairly test the incremental effect of proce-dural justice perceptions beyond the effect of passndashfail outcome If research is toaccept or refute the suggestion of Bauer et al (1998) that procedural justiceperceptions regarding general mental ability employment tests may not matterafter the selection outcome is considered their study must be replicated in othersamples of actual applicants

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE IN SELECTION 127

The main purpose of the present study is to reexamine the somewhat contro-versial findings of Bauer et al (1998) in another sample of actual job applicantstaking a cognitive ability test However there are several important differencesbetween Bauer et alrsquos study and this study

First the present study examines a blue-collar sample of meter readers asopposed to a white-collar sample of entry-level accountants Blue-collar work-ers may have different reactions to management processes than will white-collaremployees (eg Ganster amp Dwyer 1995) Moreover the perceived fairness of aselection device may depend on the job or occupation for which it is being used(Colquitt Conlon Wesson Porter amp Yee Ng 2001 Elkins amp Phillips 2000)Thus cognitive ability tests may be seen as more or less fair for hiring differentjob types (blue-collar vs white-collar) This may be because blue-collar jobsrequire relatively less formal education and thus less exposure to written testingin general Also firms hiring for less complex blue-collar jobs may utilize cog-nitive ability testing less often than when hiring for more complex white-collarpositions This relative lack of exposure to written testing could negativelyaffect self-efficacy for such testing among blue-collar employees (Gist ampMitchell 1992) Lower self-efficacy or lower confidence for taking writtencognitive ability tests could make blue-collar applicants more suspicious andmore sensitized to justice concerns when taking such tests (eg Gilliland1994) especially when a job offer depends on their test performance This couldpossibly create more variance in their justice perceptions than for white-collaremployees who have more exposure confidence and perhaps more acceptanceof cognitive ability tests for hiring This line of argument although speculativesuggests a possibility that we could find stronger procedural justice effects inthis blue-collar sample than were found in Bauer et alrsquos (1998) white-collarsample

Second we explore the relationships between procedural justice perceptionsand two additional applicant outcome variables that are relevant to organizationsand that were not included in Bauer et al (1998) Gillilandrsquos (1993) theoreticalframework includes several organization-related intentions that should be pre-dicted by procedural justice including job-acceptance intention Managers arelikely to be interested in customer-oriented intentions as well Thus we examinethe effects of procedural justice perceptions on outcomes not included in Baueret al (a) intention to accept a job offer and (b) intention to use and recommendthe companyrsquos services However we do not include self-efficacy and generalperceptions of testing fairness from Bauer et al We are not as interested in theseoutcomes because effects of procedural justice on them were not washed out bycontrolling for the passndashfail result and because these outcomes have less directimplications for management Also the effects of procedural justice on these out-comes have been well established in several other studies (Gilliland 1994Lounsbury Bobrow amp Jensen 1989)

128 MAERTZ ET AL

Third we examine a selection process wherein the written ability test isessentially the last hurdle in the selection process In this study over 95 ofthose who passed the test were hired only a physical exam followed the test InBauer et al (1998) there was at least one more formal interview hurdle in theselection process before hiring decisions were made In this case reported levelsof organizational attraction and intention toward the organization may not carryover until after the selection decision In fact the next selection hurdle may haveaffected these outcomes Applicantsrsquo reactions following the final selectiondecision are most likely to affect their future behavior with respect to the organi-zation Thus this study examines the effects of procedural justice on potentiallymore relevant reactions

Literature Review

Applicants generally favor selection procedures that are seen as fair (egKluger amp Rothstein 1993 Ployhart amp Ryan 1998 Rynes amp Connerley 1993Steiner amp Gilliland 1996) Perceptions that selection procedures are fair mayenhance evaluations of the organizationrsquos attractiveness and positively influenceapplicant intentions (Judge Blancero Cable amp Johnson 1995 Macan et al1994 Schmit amp Ryan 1997 Smither et al 1993) However past studies on theeffects of procedural justice perceptions in selection contexts often containedmethodological shortcomings For instance initial levels of the outcomes maynot have been controlled (Rynes amp Connerley 1993) Without such control it isimpossible to distinguish procedural justice effects from individual differenceson the outcomes Also in much of the prior literature the selection outcomeitself has not been controlled when assessing the effects of procedural justiceIn real selection situations efforts can be made to enhance procedural justiceperceptions but the passndashfail outcome cannot be adjusted to accommodateapplicant reactions Thus procedural justice perceptions are important to theextent that they have an impact on criteria beyond the effect of the passndashfail deci-sion itself The question becomes whether applicant procedural justice percep-tions predict criteria when initial criterion levels and passndashfail outcome arecontrolled The findings of Bauer et al (1998) provide a preliminary answer tothis question

Using Gillilandrsquos (1993) theoretical framework to define procedural justiceBauer et al (1998) determined that five of his justice rules were salient to theemployment testing situation (a) information about the test and how it is used(b) chance to perform by showing relevant abilities during testing (c) good treat-ment at the test site (d) consistency in test administration and (e) job relatednessof the test Controlling for initial (Time 1) measures of the criterion variablesBauer et al found that the procedural justice dimensions ldquoinformation knownabout the testrdquo and ldquotreatment at the test siterdquo were positively related to both


organizational attractiveness and intention toward the organization Likewise wehypothesize the following

Hypothesis 1 Procedural justice perceptions will be related posi-tively to organization-related outcomes controlling for Time 1levels of outcomes

Bauer et al (1998) found that passndashfail result was related more strongly toorganization-related outcomes than were procedural justice perceptions Whenprocedural justice perceptions were entered into a regression analysis after thepassndashfail result only one of the five procedural justice coefficients was signifi-cant (for organizational attractiveness) perceived job relatedness None of theprocedural justice perceptions predicted intention toward the organization Theauthors speculated that the passndashfail result may wash out the effects of proceduraljustice on organization-related outcomes in an employment testing setting How-ever we utilize a blue-collar sample examine additional organization-relatedoutcomes and examine outcomes at a later stage of selection that may be morerelevant For these reasons and because other evidence on procedural justice(eg Bauer et al 2001) seems contrary to Bauer et al (1998) we hypothesize aneffect for procedural justice on organization-related outcomes even after control-ling for passndashfail result

Hypothesis 2 After controlling for passndashfail result and Time 1 lev-els of outcomes procedural justice perceptions will be related pos-itively to organization-related outcomes

Method

Sample and Setting

Participants were 287 applicants for a meter-reader position in a large privateutility organization in the western United States Matched surveys across threetime periods were obtained for 170 applicants This final sample consisted of74 men and 86 women The sample had approximately equal numbers ofCaucasian (32) African American (31) and Hispanic (27) applicants therest were from other ethnic groups Mean age was 330 years Of the sample67 had a high school diploma or equivalent 21 had a 2-year college degreeand 8 had a bachelorrsquos degree

Procedure

Three questionnaires were administered to several groups of applicants atthree different times during a daylong selection process Each group of applicants

130 MAERTZ ET AL

started the process in the midmorning with an orientation to the hiring processAt the end of this overview they were informed about the research study and (ifthey chose to participate) were given Time 1 (pre-testing pre-feedback) ques-tionnaires At this time applicants were assured that surveys would be used forresearch purposes only and would not influence the hiring process in any wayParticipants were told that those who completed all three measures would beentered into drawings for a portable stereo player and tickets to an amusementpark Immediately after participants had completed the questionnaire the testadministrator gave brief instructions and administered a written selection testbattery measuring cognitive ability This test battery involved two 5-min subtestsmeasuring quantitative and verbal ability Neither the researchers nor the appli-cants were informed about a cutoff score for passing the test

After a short break (within 15 to 20 min of finishing the test) Time 2 (post-testing pre-feedback) questionnaires were administered to applicants who choseto take it (3 participants from Time 1 did not) Procedural justice perceptionswere measured at Time 2 After Time 2 measures applicants were informed thatthey could find out their passndashfail results after 1 hr or so (sometimes it waslonger) Applicants were allowed to wait for their results in a waiting area wherethey could potentially interact with other applicants or were allowed to leave thepremises

After applicants were informed of their passndashfail result (not their raw score)Time 3 (post-testing post-feedback) questionnaires were administered to appli-cants who chose to take it (114 participants from Time 2 did not) Those whopassed the test moved on to take a final stationary bicycle test Those who passedthis physical ability test (over 95) were hired

Measures

Procedural justice perceptions Bauer et al (1998) developed scales based onfive of Gillilandrsquos (1993) procedural justice rules These were also used in thecurrent study The 5-point response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to5 (strongly agree) Information known about the test was measured using threeitems (eg ldquoI understood how this test would affect hiringrdquo) Chance to performon the test was measured using three items (eg ldquoI think that this test gave me achance to prove myselfrdquo) Treatment at the test site was measured using threeitems (eg ldquoI was treated politely during the testingrdquo) Consistency of testadministration was measured using two items (eg ldquoAll applicants were treatedthe same during the testingrdquo) Finally job relatedness of the test was measuredusing three items (eg ldquoThe questions on this test are directly related to thejobrdquo)

Outcomes Outcome variables were measured at all three points in time Fourorganization-related outcomes were included Organizational attractiveness was


measured using three items (eg ldquoThis organization is one of the best places toworkrdquo) from Macan et al (1994) and Smither et al (1993) Intention toward theorganization was comprised of three items (eg ldquoI intend to encourage others toapply for a job with this companyrdquo) also based on Macan et al and Smitheret al Service intentions were measured using two items (ie ldquoI intend to userecommend this companyrsquos servicesrdquo) Intention to accept a job offer wasassessed with one item asking whether the applicant intended to accept a job withthis company if offered

Passndashfail result This variable was coded 1 if the applicant earned a passingscore and 0 if the applicant earned a failing score

Results

Table 1 contains means standard deviations and scale reliabilities whereapplicable With the exception of the scale ldquojob relatedness of the testrdquo the alphacoefficients were above 70 indicating acceptable internal consistency reliabilityTwo factor analyses were conducted using an oblique rotation one with theprocedural justice items and one with the outcome items These analyses showthat the items for each scale loaded on their own factors without significantcross-loadings and only two scale items had loadings below 40 on their factorsBecause each scale comprised a single factor and the reliabilities were generallyacceptable the scales were used as proposed Table 2 presents correlationsamong all study variables Hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regressionanalyses

Hypothesis 1

We hypothesized that procedural justice perceptions will relate positively toorganization-related outcomes controlling for Time 1 levels of outcomes Table3 presents the results from the regressions with all procedural justice measuresand Time 1 controls predicting Time 2 outcomes Table 4 presents the same anal-yses predicting Time 3 outcomes

Analyses at Time 2 reveal that the average change in R2 for adding proceduraljustice perceptions to the regression equation was 6 Specifically informationknown about the test predicted organizational attractiveness and treatment at thesite predicted intention toward the organization in both Bauer et al (1998) andthe current study Also consistency of test administration predicted intentiontoward the organization and intention to accept a job offer Chance to performpredicted service intention Treatment at the test site predicted intention to accepta job offer At Time 3 the average change in R2 for adding procedural justice per-ceptions was 5 Chance to perform predicted organizational attractiveness andservice intention Treatment at the site predicted intention toward the organiza-tion These results provide support for Hypothesis 1

132 MAERTZ ET AL

Hypothesis 2

In Time 3 regressions 64 of the participants passed the test As in Baueret al (1998) the effect of procedural justice perceptions on organization-relatedoutcomes were weaker after passndashfail was controlled (Table 5) For organ-izational attractiveness procedural justice perceptions (as a set) contributedsignificantly to variance explained (4) after controlling passndashfail outcome butnone of the coefficients achieved significance Because no coefficient was signif-icant and the practical significance of a 4 increase in variance explained is

Table 1

Means Standard Deviations and Scale Alphas

Variable M SD Coefficient

Independent variable

Information known about the test (T2) 367 069 74

Chance to perform on the test (T2) 318 087 83Treatment at test site (T2) 408 062 71

Consistency of test administration (T2) 442 067 94

Job relatedness of test (T2) 302 073 65

Passndashfail feedback 040 049 mdash

Dependent variable

Organizational attractiveness (T1) 366 064 78Intention toward the organization (T1) 401 069 84

Intention to use services (T1) 404 072 87

Intention to accept job offer (T1) 458 063 mdash

Organizational attractiveness (T2) 361 064 82

Intention toward the organization (T2) 393 067 89Intention to use services (T2) 394 067 84





Note For Time 1 (T1) variables ns = 279 to 287 for Time 2 (T2) variables ns = 272 to283 for Time 3 (T3) variables ns = 166 to 170


questionable we conclude that the findings for organizational attractiveness donot support Hypothesis 2 in a meaningful way For each of the three intentionoutcomes procedural justice perceptions (as a set) did not contribute sig-nificantly to variance explained when controlling for passndashfail result but twocoefficients were significant Treatment at the test site predicted intention towardthe organization and information known predicted intention to accept a job offerThus Hypothesis 2 was supported only very weakly and the findings of Baueret al were largely replicated

Discussion

Controlling for initial outcome levels four out of five procedural justiceperceptions were significantly related to at least one organization-related out-come and all four outcomes related to at least one of the procedural justice per-ceptions Specifically information known about the test predicted organizationalattractiveness and treatment at the site predicted intention toward the organiza-tion in both Bauer et al (1998) and the current study Evidently feelings that onehas been informed about the test reflect well on the organization such that it ismore attractive to the applicant at least temporarily Feeling that one has beentreated well at the test site may increase applicant intention to recommend theorganization to other applicants These two studies suggest that managers maywant to make sure that test preparationintroduction for applicants is clear andcomplete and that treatment of all applicants during the testing process isfriendly and respectful The current findings also indicate that consistency oftest administration predicted intention toward the organization and intention toaccept a job offer Treatment at the test site predicted intention to accept a joboffer Chance to perform predicted organizational attractiveness and serviceintention

After passndashfail result was controlled statistically the findings were consider-ably weaker There is some marginal evidence that procedural justice perceptionsmay affect organizational attractiveness which may affect subsequent behaviorsrelevant to the organization (Rynes amp Barber 1990) but no individual coefficientachieved significance With respect to intentions 2 of 15 coefficients were signif-icant but as a set procedural justice perceptions did not explain significant vari-ance in any intention outcome The general pattern of findings is clear andconsistent with Bauer et al (1998) (a) one or more of the five procedural justiceperceptions predict organization-related outcomes before passndashfail feedback isgiven but (b) procedural justice perceptions have marginal or no effect on appli-cant attraction and intention after the passndashfail outcome is controlled Evidentlyusing a blue-collar versus a white-collar sample adding outcome variables andexamining more final measures of outcomes (later in the hiring process) did notgreatly change the results from those found in Bauer et al

134 MAERTZ ET AL

Tabl

e 2

Cor

rela

tion

s fo

r St

udy

Vari

able

s

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1In

form

atio

n kn

own

abou

t the

test

mdash

2C

hanc

e to

per

form

on

the

test

50

mdash

3T

reat

men

t at t

he te

st

site

27

28

mdash

4C

onsi

sten

cy o

f te

st

adm

inis

trat

ion

29

21

51

mdash5

Job

rela

tedn

ess

of

the

test

54

64

20

12

mdash

6Pa

ssndashf

ail r

esul

t0

82

00

80

41

5mdash

7O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T1)

19

14

20

17

07

-03

mdash

8In

tent

ion

tow

ard

the

orga

niza

tion

(T1)

20

17

31

32

13

-08

63

mdash

9Se

rvic

e in

tent

ion

(T1)

16

15

22

36

08

-02

50

76

mdash


10

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T1)

15

08

26

44

01

06

34

53

51

mdash11

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T2)

33

23

33

25

22

-04

67

53

42

20

mdash

12

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

2)3

32

43

73

61

60

74

96

25

13

66

5mdash

13

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

2)2

52

82

63

41

60

24

35

26

23

25

77

2mdash

14

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T2)

27

12

36

43

08

07

35

41

33

51

42

59

54

mdash15

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T3)

41

31

24

24

22

13

71

54

39

25

78

59

47

38

mdash

16

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

3)3

43

13

43

32

22

14

76

44

73

65

47

65

84

67

3mdash

17

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

3)2

73

01

92

91

91

73

94

76

12

94

96

28

24

05

77

2mdash

18

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T3)

31

24

26

26

15

28

31

37

25

45

37

51

34

55

57

68

50

Not

e P

airw

ise

dele

tion

of c

ases

was

use

d fo

r co

rrel

atio

ns s

o sa

mpl

e si

zes

diff

er a

cros

s tim

es F

or T

ime

1 (T

1) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

9 to

287

fo

r T

ime

2 (T

2) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

2 to

283

for

Tim

e 3

(T3)

var

iabl

es n

s =

166

to 1

70

p lt

05

136 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 3

Hierarchical Regression Analysis at Time 2

R2 R2 F

Organizational attractivenessStep 1 Perception (T1) 53 19001

Organizational attractiveness 65

Step 2 Procedural justice (T2) 59 06 480

Information known about test 16Chance to perform 03

Treatment 08

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 02

Overall equation 3869Intention toward the organization

Step 1 Perception (T1) 46 14412

Intention toward the organization 58



Treatment 16

Consistency 13

Job relatedness -08

Overall equation 3055

Service intentionStep 1 Perception (T1) 52 17810

Service intention 68


Information known about test -05Chance to perform 15

Treatment 08

Consistency 04

Job relatedness 01


(table continues)


Because managers will probably not adjust passndashfail cutoffs or alter hireno-hire decisions simply to influence applicant reactions the current results alongwith Bauer et al (1998) call into question whether procedural justice perceptionsin a selection context will have strong effects on post-selection reactions In shortapplicants who pass the test are likely to have positive reactions and those whofail are likely to have negative reactions The lesson for managers is that investingsignificant resources in trying to enhance justice perceptions will likely yieldlimited benefits Still based on significant justice effects on outcomes in othercontexts managers should err on the side of caution and try to make hiring pro-cedures as fair as possible especially because following procedural justice rules(Gilliland 1993) often does not require a great expenditure of resources

Future research should investigate why procedural justice perceptions mighthave limited incremental effects beyond the passndashfail result in selection contextsFor those not hired the unpleasantness and the finality of failing a selectionhurdle may cause them to completely avoid thinking about the selection proce-dures as a defense mechanism Alternatively through self-serving bias (egChan Schmitt Jennings Clause amp Delbridge 1998) applicants may reason ret-rospectively that the procedures must have been unfair to arrive at the no-hireoutcome or applicants may make external attributions of unfair procedures toprotect their self-esteem (Schroth amp Shah 2000) Either blocking out cognitionabout testing procedures or self-serving bias in attributions could blur the reac-tions to outcome and procedures into an overall negative reaction This could

Table 3 (Continued)

R2 R2 F

Intention to accept job offerStep 1 Perception (T1) 37 10052

Intention to accept job offer 50


Information known about test 11Chance to perform -08

Treatment 15

Consistency 15

Job relatedness -01


Note T1 = Time 1 T2 = Time 2 n = 170 Significance levels for regression coefficientsare one-tailedp lt 05 p lt 01

138 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 4


R2 R2 F





Treatment 03

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 05






Treatment 12

Consistency 05

Job relatedness 01






Treatment 07

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


(table continues)


reduce the incremental effects of procedural justice on subsequent attraction andintention for those who fail

For those who pass there is evidence that a favorable outcome more than pro-cedural justice may lead to happiness and pride (Weiss Suckow amp Cropanzano1999) In their happiness those who pass may quickly accept procedures as ade-quately fair and forget about them Passing would also encourage self-servingattributions of fair procedures and high ability (Schroth amp Shah 2000) Also asthe applicant is hired procedural justice effects may weaken as further infor-mation about the job is obtained like recruiter effects often do (eg Taylor ampBergmann 1987) These factors would all tend to reduce the incremental effectsof procedural justice beyond the passndashfail result Future research should investi-gate these potential explanations

In addition the nature of the passndashfail or hireno-hire decision is differentfrom several other organizational decisions that have been studied Unlike poten-tially continuous pay raises performance ratings or collective bargaining out-comes the passndashfail outcome is dichotomous and relatively final Applicantsmay see selection as a pure winndashlose situation dampening any amelioratingeffects of fair procedures found in situations with multilevel outcomes More-over in the selection context there is not yet an ongoing relationship with theorganization For this reason applicants may not have enough experience withthe organization or an adequate frame of reference to judge procedural justiceThis could make procedural justice perceptions of applicants more vague and

Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Controlling for PassndashFail Feedback at Time 3

R2 R2 F

Organizational attractiveness



Step 2 Feedback (T3) 53 03 1071

Passndashfail feedback 12


Information known about test 11

Chance to perform 08

Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05


Intention toward the organization








Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)


tentative than those of employees Thus applicantsrsquo procedural justice percep-tions may be less predictive of intention and behavior than current employee per-ceptions Future research should investigate applicant versus employeedifferences in perceptions of procedural justice and the relative potency of proce-dural justice between situations where the distributed outcome is dichotomousversus multilevelcontinuous A tentative hypothesis might be that the ameliorat-ing effects of procedural justice in the face of a negative outcome (eg Folger ampKonovsky 1989) are weaker in the case of a dichotomous versus multilevel out-come and are weaker for applicant versus employee samples

Researchers also must investigate the impact of procedural justice percep-tions on several other important behavioral criteria for those who fail propensity

Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04


Intention to accept job offer








Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01


Note T1 = Time 1 T2 = Time 2 T3 = Time 3 n = 170 Significance levels for regres-sion coefficients are one-tailedp lt 05 p lt 01

142 MAERTZ ET AL

to seek legal redress speaking negatively about the company and activelydiscouraging people from applying or using company services For those who arehired the impact of procedural justice in selection on organizational com-mitment task performance and organizational citizenship behavior should beinvestigated longitudinally Until research on such criteria is conducted manag-ers cannot presume that the influence of procedural justice perceptions in thiscontext is negligible

Other areas for future research are suggested by the limitations of the currentstudy The present study did not attempt to manipulate procedural justice per-ceptions One of the most pressing questions for research on applicant reactionsis whether management interventions can increase perceptions of proceduraljustice Another is whether such increases would have a significant effect onorganization-related outcomes Answering these questions would require a fieldexperiment including interventions designed to increase procedural justice Anexample would be orientation training prior to testing that explains the proce-dures of taking the test the reliability of the test its job relatedness its pastsuccess in determining good performers how it is used to make hiring decisionsand how it is more fair than other procedures (eg interviews references)

Another limitation is that we only investigated perception-based criteria Wedid not examine the effects of procedural justice on relevant behavioral criteria forthose hired (eg job performance citizenship behavior turnover) and for thosenot hired (eg applicant dropout rate EEOC complaints change in companyservice use company-related criticism) Unfortunately we were unable to collectthese behavioral measures Our inability to obtain such behavioral criteria and ourfailure to manipulate justice perceptions is a definite limitation to the overall con-tribution of the present study In addition we collected all of the measures on thesame day Because of practice or consistency effects this could have inflated cor-relations between measures of the same outcome across time periods more thanwould be expected if measures were taken weeks apart With this design control-ling for Time 1 levels in each regression may have limited the variance to be pre-dicted and significant effects more than if there were considerable time betweenmeasures In short there is a good possibility that our results may not generalizeto selection processes that take weeks to unfold Fortunately many other jobs dohave relatively short (1 to 2 days) selection processes Finally although we haveno direct evidence of this demand characteristics causing a positive bias inresponses could have been a problem if participants thought (despite what theywere told to the contrary) that their responses might influence the hiring decisions

Despite these limitations we have contributed to the procedural justiceliterature by conducting a field investigation in an employment testing settingcontrolling for initial levels of criteria and passndashfail result to better understandthe effects of procedural justice perceptions We generally replicated thesomewhat controversial findings of Bauer et al (1998) in a blue-collar sample


including additional intention outcomes Procedural justice perceptions generallyrelated to organization-related criteria controlling for initial criterion levels butthe passndashfail result diminished or negated the effects of procedural justice per-ceptions on organization-related outcomes Hopefully these findings and ourdiscussion of them will help stimulate continued research on procedural justice inthe selection context

References

Bauer T N Maertz C P Dolen M R amp Campion M A (1998) Longitudi-nal assessment of applicant reactions to employment testing and test outcomefeedback Journal of Applied Psychology 83 892-903

Bauer T N Truxillo D M Sanchez R J Craig J M Ferrara P amp CampionM A (2001) Applicant reactions to selection Development of the SelectionProcedural Justice Scale (SPJS) Personnel Psychology 54 387-419

Bies R J Martin C J amp Brockner J (1993) Just laid off but still a ldquogoodcitizenrdquo Only if the process is fair Employee Responsibilities and RightsJournal 6 227-238

Brockner J Konovsky M Cooper-Schneider R Folger R Martin C L ampBies R J (1994) Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome nega-tivity on victims and survivors of job loss Academy of Management Journal37 397-409

Chan D (1997) Racial subgroup differences in predictive validity perceptionson personality and cognitive ability tests Journal of Applied Psychology 82311-320

Chan D Schmitt N Jennings D Clause C S amp Delbridge K (1998)Applicant perceptions of test fairness Integrating justice and self-serving biasperspectives International Journal of Selection and Assessment 6 232-239

Colquitt J A Conlon D E Wesson M J Porter C O amp Yee Ng K (2001)Justice at the millennium A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organiza-tional justice research Journal of Applied Psychology 86 425-445

Elkins T J amp Phillips J S (2000) Job context selection decision outcomeand the perceived fairness of selection tests Biodata as an illustrative caseJournal of Applied Psychology 85 479-484

Folger R amp Konovsky M (1989) Effects of procedural and distributive justiceon reactions to pay raise decisions Academy of Management Journal 22115-130

Ganster D C amp Dwyer D J (1995) The effects of understaffing on individualand group performance in professional and trade occupations Journal ofManagement 21 175-190

Gilliland S W (1993) The perceived fairness of selection systems An organi-zational justice perspective Academy of Management Review 18 694-734

144 MAERTZ ET AL

Gilliland S W (1994) Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactionsto a selection system Journal of Applied Psychology 79 691-701

Gist M E amp Mitchell T R (1992) Self-efficacy A theoretical analysis ofits determinants and malleability Academy of Management Review 17183-211

Gleason S E amp Roberts K (1997) Lessons from workersrsquo compensation Per-ceptions of fairness in disputes In S E Gleason (Ed) Workplace disputeresolution Directions for the 21st century (pp 129-142) East Lansing MIMichigan State University Press

Hunter J amp Hunter R (1984) The validity and utility of alternative predictorsof job performance Psychological Bulletin 96 72-98

Judge T A Blancero D Cable D M amp Johnson D E (1995 April) Effectsof selection systems on job search decisions Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologists SanDiego CA

Kluger A N amp Rothstein H R (1993) The influence of selection test type onapplicant reactions to employment testing Journal of Business and Psychol-ogy 8 3-25

Lounsbury J W Bobrow W amp Jensen J B (1989) Attitudes toward employ-ment testing Scale development correlates and ldquoknown-grouprdquo validationProfessional Psychology Research and Practice 20 340-349

Macan T H Avedon M J Paese M amp Smith D E (1994) The effects ofapplicantsrsquo reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center Per-sonnel Psychology 47 715-738

Ployhart R E amp Ryan A M (1998) Applicantsrsquo reactions to the fairness ofselection procedures The effects of positive rule violations and time of mea-surement Journal of Applied Psychology 83 3-16

Rosse J G Miller J L amp Stecher M D (1994) A field study of job appli-cantsrsquo reactions to personality and cognitive ability testing Journal ofApplied Psychology 7 987-992

Rowe R P Williams M C amp Day A L (1994) Selection procedures in NorthAmerica International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2 74-79

Rynes S L amp Barber A E (1990) Applicant attraction strategies An organi-zational perspective Academy of Management Review 15 286-310

Rynes S L amp Connerley M L (1993) Applicant reactions to alternative selec-tion procedures Journal of Business and Psychology 7 261-277

Schmit M J amp Ryan A M (1997) Applicant withdrawal The role oftest-taking attitudes and racial differences Personnel Psychology 50855-876

Schroth H A amp Shah P P (2000) Procedures Do we really want to knowthem An examination of the effects of procedural justice on self-esteemJournal of Applied Psychology 85 462-471


Smither J W Reilly R R Millsap R E Pearlman K amp Stoffey R W(1993) Applicant reactions to selection procedures Personnel Psychology46 49-76

Steiner D D amp Gilliland S W (1996) Fairness reactions to personnel selec-tion techniques in France and the United States Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy 81 134-141

Taylor M S amp Bergmann T J (1987) Organizational recruitment activitiesand applicantsrsquo reactions at different stages of the recruitment process Per-sonnel Psychology 40 261-285

Weiss H M Suckow K amp Cropanzano R (1999) Effects of justice condi-tions on discrete emotions Journal of Applied Psychology 84 786-794

126 MAERTZ ET AL

often seen as less fair than interviews reacutesumeacute evaluations or work samples(Rynes amp Connerley 1993 Steiner amp Gilliland 1996) but more fair than person-ality or honesty tests (Steiner amp Gilliland 1996 cf Chan 1997 Rosse Miller ampStecher 1994)

An important question for managers and researchers is whether such percep-tions of fairness in an employment-testing situation affect applicant outcomesimportant to the organization (eg Macan Avedon Paese amp Smith 1994) Inthe past several methodological shortcomings inhibited the definitive answeringof this question (Bauer Maertz Dolen amp Campion 1998) Addressing theseshortcomings Bauer et al found that the influence of procedural justice percep-tions on organizational attractiveness and intention toward the organization weresignificant when controlling for initial levels of these outcomes but diminishedwhen passndashfail result was controlled statistically Bauer et al suggest that proce-dural justice perceptions may not have a significant effect on criteria after appli-cants learn whether they passed or failed an employment test Managers areunlikely to change a testrsquos passndashfail criterion simply to accommodate applicantreactions Thus the Bauer et al findings suggest that increasing the perceivedfairness of selection testing might be ineffective for improving post-feedbackapplicant attraction and intention toward the organization outcomes important tomanagers This suggestion is rather controversial given the considerable effortdevoted to studying procedural justice in selection settings (eg Bauer et al2001 Gilliland 1993)

The Bauer et al study is the only published study to suggest that the effects ofthe selection (passndashfail) result may ldquowash outrdquo the effects of procedural justiceperceptions on organizational outcomes Other studies have demonstrated consis-tently the importance of procedural justice perceptions on criteria even consid-ering the distributive outcome (eg Bies Martin amp Brockner 1993 Brockneret al 1994 Folger amp Konovsky 1989 Gleason amp Roberts 1997) In fact Baueret al (2001) found that the higher order factors (not scales) of social and struc-tural procedural justice predicted intention to recommend the organization evenafter controlling for passndashfail result on a cognitive ability test

However Bauer et al (2001) used students applying for a fictitious job in afictitious organization The outcome of passing versus failing had no tangiblecosts for the respondent and it could have been discounted easily as only part ofan experiment Thus the passndashfail outcome was not as powerful an influence oncriteria as it would have been in an actual employment test Therefore only astudy with actual job applicants can fairly test the incremental effect of proce-dural justice perceptions beyond the effect of passndashfail outcome If research is toaccept or refute the suggestion of Bauer et al (1998) that procedural justiceperceptions regarding general mental ability employment tests may not matterafter the selection outcome is considered their study must be replicated in othersamples of actual applicants





128 MAERTZ ET AL


Literature Review








Method

Sample and Setting


Procedure


130 MAERTZ ET AL




Measures






Results


Hypothesis 1



132 MAERTZ ET AL

Hypothesis 2


Table 1









Dependent variable













Discussion



134 MAERTZ ET AL

Tabl

e 2

Cor

rela

tion

s fo

r St

udy

Vari

able

s

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1In

form

atio

n kn

own

abou

t the

test

mdash

2C

hanc

e to

per

form

on

the

test

50

mdash

3T

reat

men

t at t

he te

st

site

27

28

mdash

4C

onsi

sten

cy o

f te

st

adm

inis

trat

ion

29

21

51

mdash5

Job

rela

tedn

ess

of

the

test

54

64

20

12

mdash

6Pa

ssndashf

ail r

esul

t0

82

00

80

41

5mdash

7O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T1)

19

14

20

17

07

-03

mdash

8In

tent

ion

tow

ard

the

orga

niza

tion

(T1)

20

17

31

32

13

-08

63

mdash

9Se

rvic

e in

tent

ion

(T1)

16

15

22

36

08

-02

50

76

mdash


10

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T1)

15

08

26

44

01

06

34

53

51

mdash11

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T2)

33

23

33

25

22

-04

67

53

42

20

mdash

12

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

2)3

32

43

73

61

60

74

96

25

13

66

5mdash

13

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

2)2

52

82

63

41

60

24

35

26

23

25

77

2mdash

14

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T2)

27

12

36

43

08

07

35

41

33

51

42

59

54

mdash15

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T3)

41

31

24

24

22

13

71

54

39

25

78

59

47

38

mdash

16

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

3)3

43

13

43

32

22

14

76

44

73

65

47

65

84

67

3mdash

17

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

3)2

73

01

92

91

91

73

94

76

12

94

96

28

24

05

77

2mdash

18

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T3)

31

24

26

26

15

28

31

37

25

45

37

51

34

55

57

68

50

Not

e P

airw

ise

dele

tion

of c

ases

was

use

d fo

r co

rrel

atio

ns s

o sa

mpl

e si

zes

diff

er a

cros

s tim

es F

or T

ime

1 (T

1) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

9 to

287

fo

r T

ime

2 (T

2) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

2 to

283

for

Tim

e 3

(T3)

var

iabl

es n

s =

166

to 1

70

p lt

05

136 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 3


R2 R2 F





Treatment 08

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 02






Treatment 16

Consistency 13

Job relatedness -08






Treatment 08

Consistency 04

Job relatedness 01


(table continues)




Table 3 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 15

Consistency 15

Job relatedness -01



138 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 4


R2 R2 F





Treatment 03

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 05






Treatment 12

Consistency 05

Job relatedness 01






Treatment 07

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


(table continues)





Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL

























128 MAERTZ ET AL


Literature Review








Method

Sample and Setting


Procedure


130 MAERTZ ET AL




Measures






Results


Hypothesis 1



132 MAERTZ ET AL

Hypothesis 2


Table 1









Dependent variable













Discussion



134 MAERTZ ET AL

Tabl

e 2

Cor

rela

tion

s fo

r St

udy

Vari

able

s

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1In

form

atio

n kn

own

abou

t the

test

mdash

2C

hanc

e to

per

form

on

the

test

50

mdash

3T

reat

men

t at t

he te

st

site

27

28

mdash

4C

onsi

sten

cy o

f te

st

adm

inis

trat

ion

29

21

51

mdash5

Job

rela

tedn

ess

of

the

test

54

64

20

12

mdash

6Pa

ssndashf

ail r

esul

t0

82

00

80

41

5mdash

7O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T1)

19

14

20

17

07

-03

mdash

8In

tent

ion

tow

ard

the

orga

niza

tion

(T1)

20

17

31

32

13

-08

63

mdash

9Se

rvic

e in

tent

ion

(T1)

16

15

22

36

08

-02

50

76

mdash


10

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T1)

15

08

26

44

01

06

34

53

51

mdash11

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T2)

33

23

33

25

22

-04

67

53

42

20

mdash

12

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

2)3

32

43

73

61

60

74

96

25

13

66

5mdash

13

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

2)2

52

82

63

41

60

24

35

26

23

25

77

2mdash

14

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T2)

27

12

36

43

08

07

35

41

33

51

42

59

54

mdash15

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T3)

41

31

24

24

22

13

71

54

39

25

78

59

47

38

mdash

16

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

3)3

43

13

43

32

22

14

76

44

73

65

47

65

84

67

3mdash

17

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

3)2

73

01

92

91

91

73

94

76

12

94

96

28

24

05

77

2mdash

18

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T3)

31

24

26

26

15

28

31

37

25

45

37

51

34

55

57

68

50

Not

e P

airw

ise

dele

tion

of c

ases

was

use

d fo

r co

rrel

atio

ns s

o sa

mpl

e si

zes

diff

er a

cros

s tim

es F

or T

ime

1 (T

1) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

9 to

287

fo

r T

ime

2 (T

2) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

2 to

283

for

Tim

e 3

(T3)

var

iabl

es n

s =

166

to 1

70

p lt

05

136 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 3


R2 R2 F





Treatment 08

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 02






Treatment 16

Consistency 13

Job relatedness -08






Treatment 08

Consistency 04

Job relatedness 01


(table continues)




Table 3 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 15

Consistency 15

Job relatedness -01



138 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 4


R2 R2 F





Treatment 03

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 05






Treatment 12

Consistency 05

Job relatedness 01






Treatment 07

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


(table continues)





Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL


























Method

Sample and Setting


Procedure


130 MAERTZ ET AL




Measures






Results


Hypothesis 1



132 MAERTZ ET AL

Hypothesis 2


Table 1









Dependent variable













Discussion



134 MAERTZ ET AL

Tabl

e 2

Cor

rela

tion

s fo

r St

udy

Vari

able

s

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1In

form

atio

n kn

own

abou

t the

test

mdash

2C

hanc

e to

per

form

on

the

test

50

mdash

3T

reat

men

t at t

he te

st

site

27

28

mdash

4C

onsi

sten

cy o

f te

st

adm

inis

trat

ion

29

21

51

mdash5

Job

rela

tedn

ess

of

the

test

54

64

20

12

mdash

6Pa

ssndashf

ail r

esul

t0

82

00

80

41

5mdash

7O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T1)

19

14

20

17

07

-03

mdash

8In

tent

ion

tow

ard

the

orga

niza

tion

(T1)

20

17

31

32

13

-08

63

mdash

9Se

rvic

e in

tent

ion

(T1)

16

15

22

36

08

-02

50

76

mdash


10

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T1)

15

08

26

44

01

06

34

53

51

mdash11

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T2)

33

23

33

25

22

-04

67

53

42

20

mdash

12

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

2)3

32

43

73

61

60

74

96

25

13

66

5mdash

13

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

2)2

52

82

63

41

60

24

35

26

23

25

77

2mdash

14

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T2)

27

12

36

43

08

07

35

41

33

51

42

59

54

mdash15

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T3)

41

31

24

24

22

13

71

54

39

25

78

59

47

38

mdash

16

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

3)3

43

13

43

32

22

14

76

44

73

65

47

65

84

67

3mdash

17

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

3)2

73

01

92

91

91

73

94

76

12

94

96

28

24

05

77

2mdash

18

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T3)

31

24

26

26

15

28

31

37

25

45

37

51

34

55

57

68

50

Not

e P

airw

ise

dele

tion

of c

ases

was

use

d fo

r co

rrel

atio

ns s

o sa

mpl

e si

zes

diff

er a

cros

s tim

es F

or T

ime

1 (T

1) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

9 to

287

fo

r T

ime

2 (T

2) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

2 to

283

for

Tim

e 3

(T3)

var

iabl

es n

s =

166

to 1

70

p lt

05

136 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 3


R2 R2 F





Treatment 08

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 02






Treatment 16

Consistency 13

Job relatedness -08






Treatment 08

Consistency 04

Job relatedness 01


(table continues)




Table 3 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 15

Consistency 15

Job relatedness -01



138 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 4


R2 R2 F





Treatment 03

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 05






Treatment 12

Consistency 05

Job relatedness 01






Treatment 07

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


(table continues)





Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL





















130 MAERTZ ET AL




Measures






Results


Hypothesis 1



132 MAERTZ ET AL

Hypothesis 2


Table 1









Dependent variable













Discussion



134 MAERTZ ET AL

Tabl

e 2

Cor

rela

tion

s fo

r St

udy

Vari

able

s

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1In

form

atio

n kn

own

abou

t the

test

mdash

2C

hanc

e to

per

form

on

the

test

50

mdash

3T

reat

men

t at t

he te

st

site

27

28

mdash

4C

onsi

sten

cy o

f te

st

adm

inis

trat

ion

29

21

51

mdash5

Job

rela

tedn

ess

of

the

test

54

64

20

12

mdash

6Pa

ssndashf

ail r

esul

t0

82

00

80

41

5mdash

7O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T1)

19

14

20

17

07

-03

mdash

8In

tent

ion

tow

ard

the

orga

niza

tion

(T1)

20

17

31

32

13

-08

63

mdash

9Se

rvic

e in

tent

ion

(T1)

16

15

22

36

08

-02

50

76

mdash


10

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T1)

15

08

26

44

01

06

34

53

51

mdash11

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T2)

33

23

33

25

22

-04

67

53

42

20

mdash

12

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

2)3

32

43

73

61

60

74

96

25

13

66

5mdash

13

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

2)2

52

82

63

41

60

24

35

26

23

25

77

2mdash

14

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T2)

27

12

36

43

08

07

35

41

33

51

42

59

54

mdash15

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T3)

41

31

24

24

22

13

71

54

39

25

78

59

47

38

mdash

16

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

3)3

43

13

43

32

22

14

76

44

73

65

47

65

84

67

3mdash

17

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

3)2

73

01

92

91

91

73

94

76

12

94

96

28

24

05

77

2mdash

18

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T3)

31

24

26

26

15

28

31

37

25

45

37

51

34

55

57

68

50

Not

e P

airw

ise

dele

tion

of c

ases

was

use

d fo

r co

rrel

atio

ns s

o sa

mpl

e si

zes

diff

er a

cros

s tim

es F

or T

ime

1 (T

1) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

9 to

287

fo

r T

ime

2 (T

2) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

2 to

283

for

Tim

e 3

(T3)

var

iabl

es n

s =

166

to 1

70

p lt

05

136 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 3


R2 R2 F





Treatment 08

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 02






Treatment 16

Consistency 13

Job relatedness -08






Treatment 08

Consistency 04

Job relatedness 01


(table continues)




Table 3 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 15

Consistency 15

Job relatedness -01



138 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 4


R2 R2 F





Treatment 03

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 05






Treatment 12

Consistency 05

Job relatedness 01






Treatment 07

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


(table continues)





Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL
























Results


Hypothesis 1



132 MAERTZ ET AL

Hypothesis 2


Table 1









Dependent variable













Discussion



134 MAERTZ ET AL

Tabl

e 2

Cor

rela

tion

s fo

r St

udy

Vari

able

s

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1In

form

atio

n kn

own

abou

t the

test

mdash

2C

hanc

e to

per

form

on

the

test

50

mdash

3T

reat

men

t at t

he te

st

site

27

28

mdash

4C

onsi

sten

cy o

f te

st

adm

inis

trat

ion

29

21

51

mdash5

Job

rela

tedn

ess

of

the

test

54

64

20

12

mdash

6Pa

ssndashf

ail r

esul

t0

82

00

80

41

5mdash

7O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T1)

19

14

20

17

07

-03

mdash

8In

tent

ion

tow

ard

the

orga

niza

tion

(T1)

20

17

31

32

13

-08

63

mdash

9Se

rvic

e in

tent

ion

(T1)

16

15

22

36

08

-02

50

76

mdash


10

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T1)

15

08

26

44

01

06

34

53

51

mdash11

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T2)

33

23

33

25

22

-04

67

53

42

20

mdash

12

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

2)3

32

43

73

61

60

74

96

25

13

66

5mdash

13

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

2)2

52

82

63

41

60

24

35

26

23

25

77

2mdash

14

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T2)

27

12

36

43

08

07

35

41

33

51

42

59

54

mdash15

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T3)

41

31

24

24

22

13

71

54

39

25

78

59

47

38

mdash

16

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

3)3

43

13

43

32

22

14

76

44

73

65

47

65

84

67

3mdash

17

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

3)2

73

01

92

91

91

73

94

76

12

94

96

28

24

05

77

2mdash

18

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T3)

31

24

26

26

15

28

31

37

25

45

37

51

34

55

57

68

50

Not

e P

airw

ise

dele

tion

of c

ases

was

use

d fo

r co

rrel

atio

ns s

o sa

mpl

e si

zes

diff

er a

cros

s tim

es F

or T

ime

1 (T

1) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

9 to

287

fo

r T

ime

2 (T

2) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

2 to

283

for

Tim

e 3

(T3)

var

iabl

es n

s =

166

to 1

70

p lt

05

136 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 3


R2 R2 F





Treatment 08

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 02






Treatment 16

Consistency 13

Job relatedness -08






Treatment 08

Consistency 04

Job relatedness 01


(table continues)




Table 3 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 15

Consistency 15

Job relatedness -01



138 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 4


R2 R2 F





Treatment 03

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 05






Treatment 12

Consistency 05

Job relatedness 01






Treatment 07

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


(table continues)





Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL





















132 MAERTZ ET AL

Hypothesis 2


Table 1









Dependent variable













Discussion



134 MAERTZ ET AL

Tabl

e 2

Cor

rela

tion

s fo

r St

udy

Vari

able

s

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1In

form

atio

n kn

own

abou

t the

test

mdash

2C

hanc

e to

per

form

on

the

test

50

mdash

3T

reat

men

t at t

he te

st

site

27

28

mdash

4C

onsi

sten

cy o

f te

st

adm

inis

trat

ion

29

21

51

mdash5

Job

rela

tedn

ess

of

the

test

54

64

20

12

mdash

6Pa

ssndashf

ail r

esul

t0

82

00

80

41

5mdash

7O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T1)

19

14

20

17

07

-03

mdash

8In

tent

ion

tow

ard

the

orga

niza

tion

(T1)

20

17

31

32

13

-08

63

mdash

9Se

rvic

e in

tent

ion

(T1)

16

15

22

36

08

-02

50

76

mdash


10

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T1)

15

08

26

44

01

06

34

53

51

mdash11

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T2)

33

23

33

25

22

-04

67

53

42

20

mdash

12

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

2)3

32

43

73

61

60

74

96

25

13

66

5mdash

13

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

2)2

52

82

63

41

60

24

35

26

23

25

77

2mdash

14

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T2)

27

12

36

43

08

07

35

41

33

51

42

59

54

mdash15

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T3)

41

31

24

24

22

13

71

54

39

25

78

59

47

38

mdash

16

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

3)3

43

13

43

32

22

14

76

44

73

65

47

65

84

67

3mdash

17

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

3)2

73

01

92

91

91

73

94

76

12

94

96

28

24

05

77

2mdash

18

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T3)

31

24

26

26

15

28

31

37

25

45

37

51

34

55

57

68

50

Not

e P

airw

ise

dele

tion

of c

ases

was

use

d fo

r co

rrel

atio

ns s

o sa

mpl

e si

zes

diff

er a

cros

s tim

es F

or T

ime

1 (T

1) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

9 to

287

fo

r T

ime

2 (T

2) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

2 to

283

for

Tim

e 3

(T3)

var

iabl

es n

s =

166

to 1

70

p lt

05

136 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 3


R2 R2 F





Treatment 08

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 02






Treatment 16

Consistency 13

Job relatedness -08






Treatment 08

Consistency 04

Job relatedness 01


(table continues)




Table 3 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 15

Consistency 15

Job relatedness -01



138 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 4


R2 R2 F





Treatment 03

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 05






Treatment 12

Consistency 05

Job relatedness 01






Treatment 07

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


(table continues)





Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL























Discussion



134 MAERTZ ET AL

Tabl

e 2

Cor

rela

tion

s fo

r St

udy

Vari

able

s

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1In

form

atio

n kn

own

abou

t the

test

mdash

2C

hanc

e to

per

form

on

the

test

50

mdash

3T

reat

men

t at t

he te

st

site

27

28

mdash

4C

onsi

sten

cy o

f te

st

adm

inis

trat

ion

29

21

51

mdash5

Job

rela

tedn

ess

of

the

test

54

64

20

12

mdash

6Pa

ssndashf

ail r

esul

t0

82

00

80

41

5mdash

7O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T1)

19

14

20

17

07

-03

mdash

8In

tent

ion

tow

ard

the

orga

niza

tion

(T1)

20

17

31

32

13

-08

63

mdash

9Se

rvic

e in

tent

ion

(T1)

16

15

22

36

08

-02

50

76

mdash


10

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T1)

15

08

26

44

01

06

34

53

51

mdash11

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T2)

33

23

33

25

22

-04

67

53

42

20

mdash

12

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

2)3

32

43

73

61

60

74

96

25

13

66

5mdash

13

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

2)2

52

82

63

41

60

24

35

26

23

25

77

2mdash

14

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T2)

27

12

36

43

08

07

35

41

33

51

42

59

54

mdash15

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T3)

41

31

24

24

22

13

71

54

39

25

78

59

47

38

mdash

16

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

3)3

43

13

43

32

22

14

76

44

73

65

47

65

84

67

3mdash

17

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

3)2

73

01

92

91

91

73

94

76

12

94

96

28

24

05

77

2mdash

18

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T3)

31

24

26

26

15

28

31

37

25

45

37

51

34

55

57

68

50

Not

e P

airw

ise

dele

tion

of c

ases

was

use

d fo

r co

rrel

atio

ns s

o sa

mpl

e si

zes

diff

er a

cros

s tim

es F

or T

ime

1 (T

1) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

9 to

287

fo

r T

ime

2 (T

2) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

2 to

283

for

Tim

e 3

(T3)

var

iabl

es n

s =

166

to 1

70

p lt

05

136 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 3


R2 R2 F





Treatment 08

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 02






Treatment 16

Consistency 13

Job relatedness -08






Treatment 08

Consistency 04

Job relatedness 01


(table continues)




Table 3 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 15

Consistency 15

Job relatedness -01



138 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 4


R2 R2 F





Treatment 03

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 05






Treatment 12

Consistency 05

Job relatedness 01






Treatment 07

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


(table continues)





Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL





















134 MAERTZ ET AL

Tabl

e 2

Cor

rela

tion

s fo

r St

udy

Vari

able

s

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1In

form

atio

n kn

own

abou

t the

test

mdash

2C

hanc

e to

per

form

on

the

test

50

mdash

3T

reat

men

t at t

he te

st

site

27

28

mdash

4C

onsi

sten

cy o

f te

st

adm

inis

trat

ion

29

21

51

mdash5

Job

rela

tedn

ess

of

the

test

54

64

20

12

mdash

6Pa

ssndashf

ail r

esul

t0

82

00

80

41

5mdash

7O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T1)

19

14

20

17

07

-03

mdash

8In

tent

ion

tow

ard

the

orga

niza

tion

(T1)

20

17

31

32

13

-08

63

mdash

9Se

rvic

e in

tent

ion

(T1)

16

15

22

36

08

-02

50

76

mdash


10

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T1)

15

08

26

44

01

06

34

53

51

mdash11

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T2)

33

23

33

25

22

-04

67

53

42

20

mdash

12

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

2)3

32

43

73

61

60

74

96

25

13

66

5mdash

13

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

2)2

52

82

63

41

60

24

35

26

23

25

77

2mdash

14

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T2)

27

12

36

43

08

07

35

41

33

51

42

59

54

mdash15

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T3)

41

31

24

24

22

13

71

54

39

25

78

59

47

38

mdash

16

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

3)3

43

13

43

32

22

14

76

44

73

65

47

65

84

67

3mdash

17

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

3)2

73

01

92

91

91

73

94

76

12

94

96

28

24

05

77

2mdash

18

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T3)

31

24

26

26

15

28

31

37

25

45

37

51

34

55

57

68

50

Not

e P

airw

ise

dele

tion

of c

ases

was

use

d fo

r co

rrel

atio

ns s

o sa

mpl

e si

zes

diff

er a

cros

s tim

es F

or T

ime

1 (T

1) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

9 to

287

fo

r T

ime

2 (T

2) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

2 to

283

for

Tim

e 3

(T3)

var

iabl

es n

s =

166

to 1

70

p lt

05

136 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 3


R2 R2 F





Treatment 08

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 02






Treatment 16

Consistency 13

Job relatedness -08






Treatment 08

Consistency 04

Job relatedness 01


(table continues)




Table 3 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 15

Consistency 15

Job relatedness -01



138 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 4


R2 R2 F





Treatment 03

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 05






Treatment 12

Consistency 05

Job relatedness 01






Treatment 07

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


(table continues)





Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL






















10

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T1)

15

08

26

44

01

06

34

53

51

mdash11

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T2)

33

23

33

25

22

-04

67

53

42

20

mdash

12

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

2)3

32

43

73

61

60

74

96

25

13

66

5mdash

13

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

2)2

52

82

63

41

60

24

35

26

23

25

77

2mdash

14

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T2)

27

12

36

43

08

07

35

41

33

51

42

59

54

mdash15

O

rgan

izat

iona

l at

trac

tiven

ess

(T3)

41

31

24

24

22

13

71

54

39

25

78

59

47

38

mdash

16

Inte

ntio

n to

war

d th

e or

gani

zatio

n (T

3)3

43

13

43

32

22

14

76

44

73

65

47

65

84

67

3mdash

17

Serv

ice

inte

ntio

n (T

3)2

73

01

92

91

91

73

94

76

12

94

96

28

24

05

77

2mdash

18

Inte

ntio

n to

acc

ept a

jo

b of

fer

(T3)

31

24

26

26

15

28

31

37

25

45

37

51

34

55

57

68

50

Not

e P

airw

ise

dele

tion

of c

ases

was

use

d fo

r co

rrel

atio

ns s

o sa

mpl

e si

zes

diff

er a

cros

s tim

es F

or T

ime

1 (T

1) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

9 to

287

fo

r T

ime

2 (T

2) v

aria

bles

ns

= 27

2 to

283

for

Tim

e 3

(T3)

var

iabl

es n

s =

166

to 1

70

p lt

05

136 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 3


R2 R2 F





Treatment 08

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 02






Treatment 16

Consistency 13

Job relatedness -08






Treatment 08

Consistency 04

Job relatedness 01


(table continues)




Table 3 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 15

Consistency 15

Job relatedness -01



138 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 4


R2 R2 F





Treatment 03

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 05






Treatment 12

Consistency 05

Job relatedness 01






Treatment 07

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


(table continues)





Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL





















136 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 3


R2 R2 F





Treatment 08

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 02






Treatment 16

Consistency 13

Job relatedness -08






Treatment 08

Consistency 04

Job relatedness 01


(table continues)




Table 3 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 15

Consistency 15

Job relatedness -01



138 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 4


R2 R2 F





Treatment 03

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 05






Treatment 12

Consistency 05

Job relatedness 01






Treatment 07

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


(table continues)





Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL
























Table 3 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 15

Consistency 15

Job relatedness -01



138 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 4


R2 R2 F





Treatment 03

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 05






Treatment 12

Consistency 05

Job relatedness 01






Treatment 07

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


(table continues)





Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL





















138 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 4


R2 R2 F





Treatment 03

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 05






Treatment 12

Consistency 05

Job relatedness 01






Treatment 07

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


(table continues)





Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL

























Table 4 (Continued)

R2 R2 F





Treatment 12

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -02



140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL





















140 MAERTZ ET AL

Table 5


R2 R2 F









Treatment 02

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 05










Treatment 11

Consistency 03

Job relatedness 03


Service intention





(table continues)




Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL
























Table 5 (Continued)

R2 R2 F




Treatment 07

Consistency 02

Job relatedness 04










Treatment 11

Consistency -02

Job relatedness -01



142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL





















142 MAERTZ ET AL







References












144 MAERTZ ET AL























References












144 MAERTZ ET AL





















144 MAERTZ ET AL





















do procedural justice perceptions in a selection testing

Documents