Revisiting met expectations as a reason why realistic job previews work

Peter Hom, Rodger W. Griffeth, Leslie E. Palich, Jeffrey S. Bracker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study reanalyzed data from an examination by Hom, Griffeth, Palich, and Bracker (1998) of the mechanisms by which posthire realistic job previews reduce turnover. Irving and Meyer (1999) argued that Hom et al. overstated support for their mediation theory by calculating residual difference scores (errors derived from predicting experienced attainment of job outcomes from initial expectations of outcomes) to operationalize met expectations. Rather, Irving and Meyer showed that methodological weaknesses associated with difference scores also plague residual difference scores. Prompted by their demonstration, this research applied partial correlations (partialing out experienced outcomes from residual differences) and Edwards' (1994) polynomial regression approach to verify whether met expectations underlie realistic previews' effectiveness. These reanalyses disputed met expectations. As a result, this inquiry revised the formulation advocated by Hom et al. (1998), positing that coping strategies and perceptions of employer concern account for how posthire previews work.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)97-112
Number of pages16
JournalPersonnel Psychology
Volume52
Issue number1
StatePublished - Mar 1999

Fingerprint

Plague
Research
Realistic job preview

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)
  • Applied Psychology

Cite this

Hom, P., Griffeth, R. W., Palich, L. E., & Bracker, J. S. (1999). Revisiting met expectations as a reason why realistic job previews work. Personnel Psychology, 52(1), 97-112.

Revisiting met expectations as a reason why realistic job previews work. / Hom, Peter; Griffeth, Rodger W.; Palich, Leslie E.; Bracker, Jeffrey S.

In: Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 1, 03.1999, p. 97-112.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hom, P, Griffeth, RW, Palich, LE & Bracker, JS 1999, 'Revisiting met expectations as a reason why realistic job previews work', Personnel Psychology, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 97-112.
Hom P, Griffeth RW, Palich LE, Bracker JS. Revisiting met expectations as a reason why realistic job previews work. Personnel Psychology. 1999 Mar;52(1):97-112.
Hom, Peter ; Griffeth, Rodger W. ; Palich, Leslie E. ; Bracker, Jeffrey S. / Revisiting met expectations as a reason why realistic job previews work. In: Personnel Psychology. 1999 ; Vol. 52, No. 1. pp. 97-112.
@article{99649b17835c4528bab2c2f614e5f6d3,
title = "Revisiting met expectations as a reason why realistic job previews work",
abstract = "This study reanalyzed data from an examination by Hom, Griffeth, Palich, and Bracker (1998) of the mechanisms by which posthire realistic job previews reduce turnover. Irving and Meyer (1999) argued that Hom et al. overstated support for their mediation theory by calculating residual difference scores (errors derived from predicting experienced attainment of job outcomes from initial expectations of outcomes) to operationalize met expectations. Rather, Irving and Meyer showed that methodological weaknesses associated with difference scores also plague residual difference scores. Prompted by their demonstration, this research applied partial correlations (partialing out experienced outcomes from residual differences) and Edwards' (1994) polynomial regression approach to verify whether met expectations underlie realistic previews' effectiveness. These reanalyses disputed met expectations. As a result, this inquiry revised the formulation advocated by Hom et al. (1998), positing that coping strategies and perceptions of employer concern account for how posthire previews work.",
author = "Peter Hom and Griffeth, {Rodger W.} and Palich, {Leslie E.} and Bracker, {Jeffrey S.}",
year = "1999",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "52",
pages = "97--112",
journal = "Personnel Psychology",
issn = "0031-5826",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Revisiting met expectations as a reason why realistic job previews work

AU - Hom, Peter

AU - Griffeth, Rodger W.

AU - Palich, Leslie E.

AU - Bracker, Jeffrey S.

PY - 1999/3

Y1 - 1999/3

N2 - This study reanalyzed data from an examination by Hom, Griffeth, Palich, and Bracker (1998) of the mechanisms by which posthire realistic job previews reduce turnover. Irving and Meyer (1999) argued that Hom et al. overstated support for their mediation theory by calculating residual difference scores (errors derived from predicting experienced attainment of job outcomes from initial expectations of outcomes) to operationalize met expectations. Rather, Irving and Meyer showed that methodological weaknesses associated with difference scores also plague residual difference scores. Prompted by their demonstration, this research applied partial correlations (partialing out experienced outcomes from residual differences) and Edwards' (1994) polynomial regression approach to verify whether met expectations underlie realistic previews' effectiveness. These reanalyses disputed met expectations. As a result, this inquiry revised the formulation advocated by Hom et al. (1998), positing that coping strategies and perceptions of employer concern account for how posthire previews work.

AB - This study reanalyzed data from an examination by Hom, Griffeth, Palich, and Bracker (1998) of the mechanisms by which posthire realistic job previews reduce turnover. Irving and Meyer (1999) argued that Hom et al. overstated support for their mediation theory by calculating residual difference scores (errors derived from predicting experienced attainment of job outcomes from initial expectations of outcomes) to operationalize met expectations. Rather, Irving and Meyer showed that methodological weaknesses associated with difference scores also plague residual difference scores. Prompted by their demonstration, this research applied partial correlations (partialing out experienced outcomes from residual differences) and Edwards' (1994) polynomial regression approach to verify whether met expectations underlie realistic previews' effectiveness. These reanalyses disputed met expectations. As a result, this inquiry revised the formulation advocated by Hom et al. (1998), positing that coping strategies and perceptions of employer concern account for how posthire previews work.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033244075&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033244075&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0033244075

VL - 52

SP - 97

EP - 112

JO - Personnel Psychology

JF - Personnel Psychology

SN - 0031-5826

IS - 1

ER -