Job choice and post decision dissonance

Abstract

The job choice and post decision attitudes and behavior of 431 accounting students were studied. Data on the attractiveness of working for different firms was shown to be a good predictor of both the job application and the job choice behavior of the individuals. Data collected after the job choice decision was made showed that the chosen firms increased in attractiveness after choice and the rejected firms decreased. After one year of employment, the subjects rated all firms lower in attractiveness than they had before they applied for jobs. It was concluded that attitudes toward firm attractiveness determine job choice behavior and that job choice behavior influences post employment attitudes about firm attractiveness. Considerable information exists about the personal characteristics of individuals who choose different occupations and jobs (see Super, 1957; Super & Bohn, 1970 for a review). There is, for example, research on the kind of interest and ability patterns which are characteristic of indi-1 This study is sponsored jointly by the American Institute of CPAs and nine of the large CPA firms. Listed alphabetically these firms are: Arthur Andersen & Co.; Coopers & Lybrand; Haskins & Sells; Laventhol Krekstein Horwath & Horwath; Main Lafrentz & Co.; Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.; Price Waterhouse & Co.; Touche Ross & Co.; and Arthur Young & Company. A commission, comprised of representatives of AICPA and CPA firms participating financially in the project, meets periodically with the researchers to serve in an advisory capacity and to appraise the progress of the study for the purpose of approving the continuation of financial support. The analysis and interpretations are those of the researchers and do not necessarily represent those of the commission or the sponsoring firms. The authors would also like to thank Jeffrey L. Harkins for his help with the project.

Temporary contracts: effect on job satisfaction and personal lives of recent PhD graduates

“…Part-time employment may have an effect, but this effect is ambiguous, with some studies finding a positive effect, some a negative one, and some none (Conway and Briner 2002). Time in job also affects job satisfaction: directly after finding a new job people are more satisfied with their job (the ''honeymoon effect''), but later they are less satisfied (the ''hangover effect'', e.g., Vroom and Deci 1971;Lawler et al 1975;Boswell et al 2009). Furthermore, having a mentor has been shown to contribute to job satisfaction, through an increase in self-confidence (e.g., Nick et al 2012).…”

“…A job at bachelor level or lower in turn negatively influences satisfaction. Also for terms of employment a longer time in job decreases satisfaction: the hangover effect (Vroom and Deci 1971;Lawler et al 1975;Boswell et al 2009). …”

An Evaluation of the Utility of Expectancy Theory in Studying the Turnover of Nurses

“…A number of other studies have also concluded that measures of valence do not significantly contribute to predictions over and above the contributions of expectancies (e.g. Lawler et al, 1975;Schneider, 1976). The results of one study, however, have shown the predictive efficiency of the expectancy x valency model to be superior to using expectancies alone (Huber, Daneshgar & Ford, 1971).…”

“…A number of researchers have investigated the expectancy x valence model of job attraction (Vroom 1966;Vroom & Deci, 1971;Lawler, Kuleck, Rhode & Sorenson, 1975). These studies have consistently provided evidence of the utility of expectancy theory in predicting job attraction.…”

How do hotel and tourism students select internship employers? A segmentation approach

“…Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory was widely adopted and considered the most influential one in studies about work-related criteria (Lawler III, Kuleck, Rhode, & Sorensen, 1975;Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). A major contention of the theory is that a person's desired outcome (e.g., satisfaction with the potential employer) is a function of a combination of outcomes (i.e., factors leading toward satisfaction) weighted by their valence, which represents the importance of the outcomes (i.e., the factors) (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996).…”