How does employer branding on LinkedIn affect the corporate reputation, employer attractiveness and the intention to apply?

(1)

How does Employer Branding on LinkedIn affect the

Corporate Reputation, Employer Attractiveness and

the intention to apply?

Thesis – Final Version

MSc Business Administration - Marketing Specialization

University of Amsterdam

Jonne Guyt

23/06/2017

Sanne Postma

11218630

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Sanne Postma who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

S.C. Postma 11218630

(3)

ABSTRACT

As social media will keep on rising, companies should take the opportunity to use it and communicate their employer branding messages to establish a great place to work image (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015). This research can provide insights on how to determine employer branding strategies on LinkedIn and

convince potential applicants to apply. There were process-macro regressions (Hayes, 2016) performed to see whether Employer Branding LinkedIn posts, differing in content (entertaining/informative) and vividness (text/pictorial), had an effect on intention to apply, employer attractiveness and corporate reputation. It was also tested whether corporate reputation and employer attractiveness had a mediating effect on the relationship between employer branding LinkedIn posts and the intention to apply. The results suggest that high vividness informative employer branding LinkedIn posts lead to positive effects. Whereas low vividness employer branding LinkedIn posts had a negative or no effect. The advice to companies is therefore, to use high vividness informative employer branding LinkedIn posts.

(4)

Since 2010 online social networks have become very popular. Over 75% of American internet users visit social networks daily and average users spent over three hours a day on these online networks. The amount of time users spent online on these platforms demonstrate, according to Buechel & Berger (2016), that they have become an integrated part of our daily lives.

Social networks have influenced the way we communicate, spend our time, look for information and form relationships with people and brands (Buechel & Berger, 2016). Social networks or social media can be defined as “a group of internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0 that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). They allow users to connect with others through personal profiles and communal sharing platforms (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Buechel & Berger, 2016). These social networks create the option for users to interact with each other by sharing stories, pictures, videos and visuals (Buechel & Berger, 2016).

According to Buechel & Berger, (2016) people engage in online social networks for affiliation, identity expression and self-representation and information dissemination. Not only people use social media for identity expression and self-representation, companies use social media to promote and inform people about their brand and business (Mantel et al.,2016). Social media has become a big part in

communication for business purposes (Green & Clark, 2016). Social media has given people a direct line to communicate to companies (Towns, 2016). People like, follow and share the brands and companies they like and engage in active community platforms (Buechel & Berger, 2016). This is why companies started using social media for employer branding as well (LinkedIn, 2017).

Employer branding is defined as building a positive employer image and offering a unique employer value proposition that features attributes that potential employees perceive as attractive and valuable (Ambler and Barrow, 1996, Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004, Kissel & Büttgen, 2015). Employer branding is used on social media to find potential applicants, showcase a company’s Corporate

(6)

Reputation, promote themselves as an attractive employer, build communities in order to network and let their current employees share their work experiences (Vincent, 2011).

There is a lack of studies focusing on social media employer branding and recruitment (Davison et al., 2011; Madera, 2012; Walker et al., 2011). This is an interesting topic for managers, HR departments and recruiters. Online recruitment can cost substantially less and saves a lot of time (Capelli, 2001). Multiple studies have been done on why companies promote their products online and what the impact is, but barely any research has been done on the use of employer branding on these social networks and the intention of applying for jobs.

When there is a talent competition, companies that are good at online recruitment will attract and retain the best employees (Capelli, 2001). According to Berthon et al., (2005), employer branding and especially Employer Attractiveness is still underdeveloped in marketing. How people perceive information through social media is still an open question (Mantel et al., 2016). It is important for marketers to understand the effectiveness and impact of different messages spread through these

innovative channels (Mantel et al., 2016). Men & Tsai (2013) suggest that people turn to social media for information-seeking and entertainment. Within the past decade pictures and videos have been added to messages to share experiences (Sabate et al., 2014). Adding visual elements increases the vividness of message, which can impact the persuasiveness (Herr et al., 1991) and could enhance existing value (Smith & Pyle, 2016).

When potential applicants look at companies they would want to work at, they take the companies’ Corporate Reputation into consideration (Edwards, 2009), before applying. The better the companies’ reputation is in their eyes, the more attractive it seems, and the more likely people are to apply (Edwards, 2009). Some recruitment practices, such as employer branding on LinkedIn, have a positive impact on the Employer Attractiveness and intention to apply. That is why this research looking at 4 different types of Employer Branding LinkedIn posts, further defined in this research as EBLP. The posts will either be high or low on vividness and the content type will either be informative or

(7)

entertaining. The research will also look at Employer Attractiveness, Corporate Reputation and the mediating effect it has on the intention of applying. LinkedIn is a relevant platform in this research as it is developed to connect potential applicants and companies (LinkedIn, 2017).

Figure 1: Overall model

The graphical illustration in Figure 1 shows the overall model, which will look at the relationship between EBLP and the intention to apply. This study investigates the mediating effect Corporate

Reputation, and Employer Attractiveness have on the relationship between EPBP and the intention to apply. The literature review will provide substantive support for all of the links shown in the above figure.

(8)

2. Literature Review

Social media are networks for social or professional interactions (Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels, 2009). Brands portraying themselves online can influence decision-making process and purchase intention (Bolscher, 2017). It is well known, in the fast-moving consumer goods industry, that brand image and reputation are very important factors for consumers in the decision-making process (Silvertzen et al., 2013). We see this trend, taking brand image and reputation into consideration, also shifting to the labor market.

According to Capelli, brand and Corporate Reputation are important factors in attracting the best employees. Edwards (2009) also suggest that employer attractiveness has an influence on attracting potential employees. Social media has given companies the opportunity to market these concepts online (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015). Online employer marketing has become a prominent strategic tool in their recruitment process (Elving et al., 2013). Marketers may refer to this as employer branding.

2.1 Employer Branding

Employer branding is used as a strategic tool to attract and retain the right talent (Martin et al., 2011). It has become a top management priority as companies are realizing that their employees, human capital, are one of the most important factors in their business and part of their compatible sustainable advantage (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015). Employer branding is not just keeping the current employees engaged and committed, but also to attract potential employees and show that the company is a great place to work (Elving, 2013).

Several studies have shown that different concepts like; reputation, image and attractiveness are used to describe what potential employees emphasize when they consider applying for a certain company (Collins and Stevens, 2002; Edwards, 2009). By posting content, on the social media channels, that is in line with the desired company image it is possible to influence potential employees’ corporate image. Social media have given employers a new channel to attract talents and communicate their employer branding strategy (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015). Social media also promotes open communication between

(9)

company management and its employees, which can help retaining talent (Edosomwan et al., 2011). It also allows companies to gain information and competitive intelligence by learning from competitors, by following their online moves on social media (Mangold & Faulds, 2009).

More and more companies are visible with a “werken bij” page on multiple social media channels, this is one way of branding and trying to interact with potential applicants. Each social media platform have different capabilities, serve different functions and users (Towns, 2016). LinkedIn is the most popular social medium used for employer branding by companies (Meijburg, 2013).

2.1.1 Employer Branding on LinkedIn

Nowadays social media, and especially LinkedIn, are one of the major sources for hiring

(Endosomwan et al., 2011). LinkedIn is fairly different from other social media channels as it is used to showcase your professional experiences instead of your private life (Meijburg, 2013). It is LinkedIn’s mission to connect professionals worldwide to make the more productive and successful. LinkedIn states that they are the world’s largest professional network (Quesenberry, 2016), with over 500 million members. It is a business focused social networking service, that allows users to follow companies and job opportunities, create professional profiles of work experience and connect with other professionals (Quesenberry, 2016). LinkedIn is available in 200 countries all around the globe and has over 6 million users in the Netherlands (LinkedIn, 2017). About 80% of companies use LinkedIn in their recruitment process (Endosomwan et al., 2011). LinkedIn visitors networking but are mainly interested and actively looking for business related information or opportunities (Meijburg, 2013). 88% of the LinkedIn members follow companies to stay up to date on business developments and vacancies (Meijburg, 2013).

Companies are investing a lot of money in employer branding campaigns as this can improve associations and attractiveness of the employer (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). As mentioned before,

employer branding often constitutes of advertisements on social media platforms promoting the employer and focusing on business culture and employer benefits. Recruitment advertisements have had a positive

(10)

effect on the intention to apply (Herriot & Rothwell, 1981). It is important for marketers to understand effectiveness of messages and posts spread through social media (Mantel et al., 2016).

2.1.2 Employer Branding and the intention to apply

Employer branding is not only used to show a positive Corporate Reputation, it is also used to persuade potential applicants to apply. Consumers use the perceptions they have of a brand to evaluate it and see if it matches what they are searching for (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). Collins & Stevens (2002), say that many parallels exist between this conceptualization of consumers and potential applicants on the labor market. Collins & Stevens (2002), mention that potential applicants may rely on brand image and recruitment activities, such as employer branding, in their decision-making process. As with product branding, employer branding may affect the intention to apply (Collins & Stevens, 2002). The process of choosing a job, or intention to apply, can be characterized as “a series of decisions made by an applicant as to which jobs and organizations to pursue for possible employment” (Gatewood, Gowan &

Lautenschlager, 1993). Choice intention is defined by Bandura (1986), as mentioned in Song & Chathoth, (2011) “as people’s willingness and likelihood to engage in a particular activity or produce a particular outcome.” More specifically for work related choices, it is the likelihood a potential applicant will apply.

2.1.3 Employer Branding LinkedIn Posts (EBLP)

As mentioned before, is it important to understand the effectiveness of posts on social media (Mantel et al., 2016). Companies express different forms of content online. They post informative or entertaining messages with text, videos and pictures to create value for the company (Berthon et al., 2005). Studies who look at enhancing positive attitudes found that vividness of the message plays a role (Fortin & Dholakia, 2005). Research on message vividness is valuable for managers so that marketers can communicate effectively (Chaudhuri, Micu & Bose, 2014) According to Hsieh & Chen (2011), pictures and videos are more effective than text based content, or a combination of picture and text based content.

(11)

2.1.3.1 Vividness

Steuer (1992) defines vividness as: “the representational richness of a mediated environment as defined by its formal features; that is, the way in which an environment presents information to the senses. Vividness consists of breadth and depth of a message. Breadth is the amount of senses the message triggers (Steuer, 1992), for instance colors and graphics. Depth is regarding the quality of the content (Fortin, Dholakia, 2005; Steuer, 1992). The level of vividness is high when it triggers more senses (Coyle & Thorson, 2001). Thus, a message scores high on vividness when it contains a video or picture and low when it contains text (de Vries et al., 2012).

Vividness is an important measure to take into consideration as it determines how people are processing content. People only have a limited amount of resources available to keep their attention to the content that is exposed (Hsieh, Chen, 2011). Attention is valuable for brands in order to persuade

(Chaiken, Eagly, 1993) or increase brand post popularity (Sabate et al., 2014). Vividness can determine how many resources people need to process the content. Reading a text is harder than watching a video or looking at a picture (Gagne, 1985; Hshieh, Chen 2011). That is why images get longer attention than text (Hsieh, Chen, 2011). Sabate et al., (2014) show that picture and video brand posts are more popular than textual posts.

Online experiences have to attract and let people stay focused (Bolscher, 2017). Vivid messages are seen as attractive and draw attention (Herr et al., 1991). High vividness messages, such as pictures are more believable or credible, as they are experienced first-hand, than written messages, as that is perceived as second-hand information (Chaudhuri, Mico & Bose, 2014). Vividness in marketing can increase overall evaluations and can influence people to try products and services (Chaudhuri, Micu & Bose, 2014). If companies add pictures to their EBLP, it is expected to have a positive impact on the intention to apply as well.

2.1.3.2 Content

(12)

entertainment (Lin & Lu,2011). Not only do people turn to social media for information and

entertainment but also to engage with companies online (Men & Tsai, 2013). These drivers suggest that companies should use informative and entertaining content (Men & Tsai, 2013). When a company post information about itself, the motivations from the people are met (de Vries et al., 2012). People have positive attitudes towards informative ads on social media (Taylor, Lewin, and Strutton, 2011). Though it is important to present the right amount of information, information overload can reduce performance and the decision-making affect (Jackson & Farzaneh, 2012). People also visit social media for entertainment (de Vries et al., 2012). Entertainment motivates people to consume or contribute to brand or company related content online. Gullen (1993), as mentioned in de Vries et al., (2012) has suggested a positive relationship between entertaining advertisements and effectiveness of the ad. Research by Lee & Chen (2013) has shown that humorous and entertaining ads are perceived as more interesting and attractive. Entertaining ads also have a positive effect on attitude towards the brand (Taylor, Lewin, and Strutton, 2011).

Previous research does not form a clear distinction, between informative and entertaining content. Cvijkj & Michahelles (2013) categorize informative content as brand or product related post and

entertaining content as unrelated brand and product content. While other studies found that informative content was providing useful and relevant information, where as entertaining content was not necessarily useful but enjoyable and entertaining (Cho, Huh & Faber, 2013; de Vries et al., 2012).

In this research, informative posts will be containing information about the company. Content that is entertaining with a non-informative link to the company will be categorized as entertaining content.

Participants will view either informative or entertaining content, how they feel about the intention to apply may differ. Neither high or low vividness Entertaining EBLP are not expected to influence intention to apply. High vividness Informative ads are expected to influence intention to apply.

(13)

There is limited research on how recruitment activities, such as EBLP, affect potential applicants (Collins & Stevens 2002; Barber, 1998). Therefore, this research expects that there is only a direct effect of high vividness entertaining EBLP on intention to apply. There is no direct effect expected for the low vividness EBLP, nor the entertaining EBLP on the intention to apply, since it is expected that there is not enough attention for low vividness posts and that entertaining ads will not lead to the intended behavior to apply.

H1a: There is no direct effect of high vividness entertaining EBLP on intention to apply. H2a: There is no direct effect of low vividness entertaining EBLP on intention to apply. H3a: There is a direct effect of high vividness informative EBLP on intention to apply. H4a: There is no direct effect of low vividness informative EBLP on intention to apply.

2.2 Corporate Reputation

Potential applicants form beliefs and attitudes about companies’ as employer. These attitudes and beliefs which provide a basis for the intention to apply and are also referred to as image or Corporate Reputation (Collins & Stevens, 2002). Corporate Reputation is a companies’ main assets (Fombrun, Gardberg, and Server, 2000) and enables them to realize opportunities (Argenti & Druckenmiller,2004). Corporate Reputation is the sum of the perceptions and knowledge associations that exist in consumer memory related to a company, including its functional and symbolic benefits (Keller, 1993). Social media can help in building a positive corporate reputation (Endosomwan, 2011).

People form impressions and associations of companies through their own experiences, for instance after seeing an EBLP, these experiences may result in a positive attitude towards the company (Keller, 1993). Before potential employees start their search for a job, they may have developed a company’s corporate image based on their previous experiences (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015).

Any form of company success, is expected to have a positive impact on the Corporate Reputation (Edwards, 2009). Several studies have shown that potential applicants find a positive Corporate

(14)

Sarma, 2010; Cable & Turban, 2003). Companies’ with a well-built brand name and reputation will be more attractive to potential applicants, than companies without a well-built brand name (Endowsom et al., 2011). As companies with outstanding reputations are often viewed as good employers (Willamson et al., 2010).

Corporate Reputation can thus be a valuable asset in attracting potential applicants (Gomes & Neves, 2011). Exposure to recruitment activities affects Corporate reputation (Collins & Stevens (2002), state that Corporate Reputation mediates the relationship between employer branding and potential applicants’ intentions to apply. Edwards (2009) has shown that there is not only a positive relation between corporate reputation and intention to apply for a job, but also between Employer Attractiveness and intention to apply.

2.3 Employer Attractiveness

Employer Attractiveness is also related to employer branding (Berthon et al., 2005). Employer Attractiveness and the status of ‘Best Employer’ have become important topics (Berthon et al., 2005). It is something companies are striving for as the media is picking up on it and potential employees are paying attention to it (Berthon, et al., 2005). According to Berthon et al., (2005) Employer Attractiveness is described as “the envisioned benefits that a potential employee sees in working for a specific organization”.

Potential applicants have perceptions about companies’ characteristics and job characteristics. These perceptions are related to the attractiveness level of the company and can be influenced by

employer branding. Perceptions can help imagine how it would be to work for the company (Elving et al., 2013).

Elving et al (2012), suggest that companies using employer branding attributes, in job advertisements generate higher perception of attractiveness among potential applicants. Several recruitment studies suggest that instrumental job and organizational attributes, such as job security,

(15)

benefits and location (Scheurs et al., 2009), are important for predicting employer attractiveness (Lievens et al., 2007). Previous research (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Scheurs, 2009), has demonstrated symbolic meaning, such as finding a company exciting or innovative, is an important predictor of employer attractiveness. Companies that get high scores on social responsibility features, such as employee

relations or environmental policies, are seen as an attractive potential employer (Auger et al., 2013). Yet it remains unclear according to Kissel & Büttgen (2015) how attractiveness contributes to application intentions in social media, since there has not been a lot of research on the role of social media and Employer Attractiveness.

There is a study taking social media into account in the energy sector, but one of the limitations the authors claim themselves is that more research needs to be done in different workforce areas, as this research may not be representative for other industries (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015).

Since there already has been a lot of research on the effect of Corporate Reputation and Employer Attractiveness on the intention to apply, this research will only be testing the mediating effect those will have on EBLP and the intention to apply. To see whether there is a mediating effect, there also needs to be a direct effect from EBLP to Employer Attractiveness and Corporate Reputation. And from Corporate Reputation and Employer Attractiveness to intention to apply. Even though participants will view either informative or entertaining content, how they feel about the corporate reputation, employer attractiveness and intention to apply may differ. Therefore, the following hypotheses are tested:

H1b: There is a direct effect of high vividness entertaining EBLP on Corporate Reputation H2b: There is a direct effect of low vividness entertaining EBLP on Corporate Reputation H3b: There is a direct effect of high vividness informative EBLP on Corporate Reputation H4b: There is a direct effect of low vividness informative EBLP on Corporate Reputation

H1c: There is a direct effect of high vividness entertaining EBLP on Employer Attractiveness H2c: There is a direct effect of low vividness entertaining EBLP on Employer Attractiveness

(16)

H3c: There is a direct effect of high vividness informative EBLP on Employer Attractiveness H4c: There is a direct effect of low vividness informative EBLP on Employer Attractiveness

H1d: Corporate Reputation mediates the relationship between the high vividness entertaining LinkedIn post and the intention to apply positively

H2d: Corporate Reputation mediates the relationship between the low vividness entertaining LinkedIn post and the intention to apply negatively

H3d: Corporate Reputation mediates the relationship between the high vividness informative LinkedIn post and the intention to apply positively

H4d: Corporate Reputation mediates the relationship between the low vividness informative LinkedIn post and the intention to apply negatively

H1e: Employer Attractiveness mediates the relationship between the high vividness entertaining LinkedIn post and the intention to apply positively

H2e: Employer Attractiveness mediates the relationship between the low vividness entertaining LinkedIn post and the intention to apply negatively

H3e: Employer Attractiveness mediates the relationship between the high vividness informative LinkedIn post and the intention to apply positively

H4e: Employer Attractiveness mediates the relationship between the low vividness informative LinkedIn post and the intention to apply negatively

(17)

Figure 3. LVE EBLP

Figure 4. HVI EBLP

Figure 5. LVI EBLP

(18)

3. Method & Data

The research methodology will be explained in this chapter. First the procedure and measurable of variables will be discussed, in the end the data collection and data analyses.

3.1 Procedure

I conducted a quantitative research. It was a survey setting, surveying 184 participants. The survey asked questions about the Corporate Reputation, Employer Attractiveness and intention to apply.

The survey is designed with Qualtrics, an electronic questionnaire, and distributed through an online link. There has been chosen for an electronic questionnaire as the response rate is higher than with a paper questionnaire (Boyer et al., 2002). The survey contained different questions and used a 7 point Likert scale for answering, to save participants time and increase response rate (Jamieson, 2004). The survey used an intention to apply scale, an Employer Attractiveness scale, a Corporate Reputation scale. It also contained images and textual posts from the “Werken bij ING” LinkedIn company page and general questions. All the questions were in English, 2 of the 4 LinkedIn posts were in English as well. The Dutch LinkedIn posts were translated into English, so participants would not miss any information if they would not understand Dutch.

In the introduction, it is stated that participating in the survey is voluntary, you can stop the survey anytime and that the data collected will be treated anonymously. It is stated that by continuing to the next page, you understand and accept the conditions.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the 4 conditions (see table 1) by Qualtrics. Each condition had at least 32 participants. Participants rated the intention to apply, Corporate Reputation and Employer Attractiveness. They rated all 3 after seeing the EBLP. Participants were randomly assigned to either the entertaining or informative condition and randomly shown either a post that contained high or low vividness. The survey took participants approximately 2 minutes.

(19)

3.2 Measurement of Variables 3.2.1 Independent Variables

For this research, the independent variables were the level of vividness and content type in the Employer Branding LinkedIn posts.

Vividness: There was a big difference between high and low vividness, as the posts high on vividness contained images and the posts low on vividness did not.

Content type: the posts were either informative or entertaining. The informative post mentioned ING winning a top employer prize. The entertaining post was about skiing after doing hard work. For the survey 4 different types of posts were used (see appendix). For the conditions high on vividness, the real informative and entertaining posts were taken. For the conditions low on vividness, the pictures the post contained were deleted, but contained the real text from the post. This set up created a 2x2 design.

3.2.2 Dependent variable:

This study used Cable and Judge (1996) intention to apply scale. The scale consists one item: “Rate the likelihood that you would accept a job offer from this organization, if it were offered.” Participants had to rate this on a 7 point Likert scale. A high score indicates that one would intent to accept a position and thus apply.

3.2.3 Mediators

Mediation is expected to occur when an independent variable affects a dependent variable indirectly through an intervening variable (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). This study used Corporate

Reputation as mediator. The reputation scale from Chun (2005) was used and consists of 6 items. “I trust this company” and “Looks like a good company to work for” are example items. Participants rated the

(20)

items on a 7 point Likert scale, ranging from “Entirely Disagree” (1) to “Entirely Agree” (7). Participants could only choose one answer per item and had to answer all 6 items. All items have been used in previous employer branding studies (Chun, 2005). A high score indicates that one finds the company’s corporate reputation good.

Employer Attractiveness was also used as mediator. Berthon et al. (2005) created an Employer Attractiveness scale, consisting of 8 items to measure the Employer Attractiveness. “I will gain career-enhancing experience” and “Working in an exciting environment” are example items. Participants had to rate this on a 7 point Likert scale ranging from “Entirely Disagree” (1) to “Entirely Agree” (7).

Participants could only choose one answer per item and had to answer all 6 items. A high score indicates that one finds the company attractive.

3.2.4 Control variables

Gender and age were used as control variables, to account for differences among the participants.

3.3 Data collection

To test the hypotheses an online survey was made and spread among friends and family through Facebook, WhatsApp and email. Participants were invited personally and approached face-to-face at several locations in Amsterdam to stimulate response rate (Yu & Cooper, 1983). The participants approached face-to-face answered the survey on a MacBook or IPad, so all responses were recorded online.

In total 184 participants participated in this study. 30 participants did not finish the survey and were excluded from the results. There were 94 female participants (62.3%), and 57 male participants (37.7%). The results may lead to a low generalizability as the majority of participants, 55% (N=83) was between the ages of 23-25 years old. There were only 2 participants younger than 20 years old, 1.3% (N=2). 21.9% was between the ages of 20-22 years old (N=33) and 21.9% of the participants were older than 25 years old (N=33). The majority of participants 80.2% was still studying, of which 43.7%, was

(21)

doing a masters (N=66). Only 19.2% (N=29) was already working or doing something else. Most participants were born in the Netherlands 92.7% (N=140).

3.4 Data analysis

The data was retrieved from Qualtrics and imported in Statistical Software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The 30 participants that did not finish the survey were excluded from the data. The descriptive statistics can be found in table 1, which details the means, standard deviations and pairwise correlations of the variables. Descriptive statistics, Skewness, kurtosis and normality test were computed. Results showed a few outliers, which were not removed.

For hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 a linear regression has been performed. To test hypotheses 3a-d and 4a-d a hierarchical regression was performed using PROCESS-macro from Hayes (2016). The PROCESS-macro measures direct, indirect and total effect size in mediation regression analysis (Preacher & Kelley, 2011). The analysis followed a hierarchical approach in which the variables and mediators were introduced. Hypotheses testing is based on the results of the full model, model 6.

(22)

4. Results

The following chapter will report the analysis of the results. Starting with the correlations between the variables following with the hypotheses results.

Figure 6. Overall Model

4.1 Correlations

In table 2. an overview of the means, standard deviations and the two-tailed Pearson correlations can be found. A notable observation is that intention to apply shows a positive significant strong

correlation with Employer Attractiveness (r =0.576, p<.01) & Corporate Reputation (r =0.602, p<.01). High vividness informative employer branding LinkedIn post had a positive significant correlation with intention to apply (r =0.206, p<.05) and low vividness entertaining employer branding LinkedIn post had a significant negative correlation with intention to apply (r= -0.205, p<.05) are, as expected. These positive and negative correlations were expected as explained in the literature review chapter. Control variable age also shows a negative significant correlation with intention to apply (r -0.207, p<.05), but not as strong Corporate Reputation & Employer Attractiveness. This significant correlation for age is not expected but can relate to the suggestion that the younger participants are, the more likely it is that they are at an age where they are about to graduate and might be looking for jobs.

(23)

4.2 Hypotheses testing direct, indirect effects & mediation effects

A hierarchical regression has been performed using PROCESS-macro from Hayes (2016), for all independent and mediating variables, after controlling for gender and age. With the 4 different types of Employer Branding LinkedIn posts as the independent variable, Corporate Reputation as mediator and intention to apply as dependent variable. The findings of the regression are reported in table 3. The conclusions of this study are based on the full models (see table 3-6). The baseline model is estimated with the control variables gender and age. Whereby there has been controlled for autocorrelation via the Durbin Watson test. The Durbin Watson test statistics had a value of 1.604. Durbin Watson may vary between the 0-4. The ideal autocorrelation will show a value of 2. It may variable within 1.5-2.5 max. Even though the value of 1.604 is close to the cut-off value it is still acceptable. Baseline model: R²=0.037, Anova F = 3.858, p<.05. Which means that we can see that there are no measuring errors.

Age had a negative effect on the intention to apply in the baseline model (β=-0.346, p<.05). Which suggests that the older you get, the less the you have the intention to apply to an employer. Gender in the baseline model is not significant (β =-0.206, p=0.311). Which suggest that the intention to apply does not differ between women and men.

(24)

(25)

4.2.1 High vividness entertaining (HVE) EBLP

H1a: There is no direct effect of HVE EBLP on intention to apply. H1a supported (β=0.137, p=.5415). This may imply that the reported effect of HVE EBLP on intention to apply are mainly caused by a mediator.

H1b: There is a direct effect of HVE EBLP on Corporate Reputation. H1b not supported, as there is no significant effect found (β=-0.179, p=0.323). This suggests that the corporate reputation does not mediate the relation between HVE EBLP and intention to apply, thus if there is an effect it may be caused by another mediator.

H1c: There is a direct effect of HVE EBLP on Employer Attractiveness. H1c is supported. (β =0.356, p <.05). This indicates that Employer Attractiveness is a positive and significant mediator between the HVE EBLP and Intention to Apply, and that the perceived effect of HVE EBLP on Intention to apply is caused by the Employer Attractiveness.

H1d: Corporate Reputation mediates the relationship between the HVE LinkedIn post and the intention to apply positively. H1d is not supported, since there was no significant effect found from HVE EBLP on corporate reputation (β=-0.179, p=0.323), there cannot be a mediation effect of Corporate reputation on the HVE EBLP – intention to apply relation.

(26)

H1e: Employer Attractiveness mediates the relationship between the HVE EBLP and the

intention to apply positively. H1e is supported. As HVE EBLP has a positive significant relationship with employer attractiveness (β= 0.356, p < .05), and employer attractiveness has a positive significant

relationship with the intention to apply (β= 0.397, p < .01), there is a confirmed mediation effect between HVE EBLP and intention to apply by the employer attractiveness. Due to the fact that the direct effect of HVE EBLP on intention to apply is not significant (β= 0.082, p = .655), this study concludes that there is a full mediation effect between HVE EBLP and intention to apply by the employer attractiveness. H3e is supported.

The process overall model summary showed that it explains 42% of the variance (R²=0.423, F(5,145)=21.764, p <.001). There was no effect for control variables gender (β= 0.046, p= 0.779) and age (β= -0.165, p= 0.146).

Figure 7: HVI Results

4.2.2 Low vividness entertaining (LVE) EBLP

H2a: There is no direct effect of LVE EBLP on intention to apply. H2a is rejected as there is a negative significant effect (β =-0.515, p <.05). Thus, there is a significant direct effect between LVE EBLP and intention to apply, but the direction of the relation is opposite to the predicted relationship. H2b: There is a direct effect of LVE EBLP on Corporate Reputation. H2b is supported, as there is a negative significant effect (β =-0.734, p <.001).

H2c: There is a direct effect of LVE EBLP on Employer Attractiveness. H2c is supported, as there is a negative significant effect (β =-0.470, p <.01).

(27)

H2d: Corporate Reputation mediates the relationship between the LVE ELBP and the intention to apply negatively. As there is a direct negative significant effect of LVE EBLP on Corporate Reputation (β =-0.734, p <.001), and there is a positive significant effect of Corporate Reputation on intention to apply (β =0.479, p <.001), this study concludes that there is a mediating effect of Corporate Reputation on the relationship between LVE EBLP and intention to apply. When the direct effect between LVE EBLP and intention to apply is inspected than this study finds no significant effect between LVE EBLP and intention to apply (β =0.031, p =.868), this means that there is a full mediating effect of Corporate Reputation on the relationship between LVE EBLP and the intention to apply. H2d is supported.

H2e: Employer Attractiveness mediates the relationship between the LVE EBLP and the intention to apply negatively. As there is a direct negative significant effect of LVE EBLP on Employer

Attractiveness (β =-0.470, p <.01) and there is a positive significant effect of Employer Attractiveness on intention to apply (β =0.414, p <.001), this study concludes that there is a mediating effect of corporate reputation on the relationship between LVE EBLP and intention to apply. When the direct effect between LVE EBLP and intention to apply is inspected than this study finds no significant effect between LVE EBLP and intention to apply (β =0.031, p =.868), this means that there is a full mediating effect of Employer Attractiveness on the relationship between LVE EBLP and the intention to apply. H2e is supported.

The process overall model summary showed that it explains 43% of the variance (R²=.428, F(5.145)=21.703, p <.001). For the control variables gender (β= 0.052, p= 0.749) and age (β= -0.160, p=-0.155), there was no significant effect found.

(28)

4.2.3 High vividness informative

H3a: There is a direct effect of HVI EBLP on intention to apply. H3a is supported, as there is positive significant effect (β =0.411, p =.026). Thus, there is a significant direct effect between HVI EBLP and intention to apply.

H3b: There is a direct effect of HVI EBLP on Corporate Reputation. H3c is supported (β= 0.820, p <.001). This indicates that Corporate Reputation is a positive and significant mediator between the HVI EBLP and Intention to Apply, and that the perceived effect of HVI EBLP on Intention to apply is caused by the Corporate Reputation.

H3c: There is a direct effect of HVI EBLP on Employer Attractiveness. H3c is supported (β =0.363, p <.05). This indicates that Employer Attractiveness is a positive and significant mediator between the HVI EBLP and Intention to Apply, and that the perceived effect of HVI EBLP on Intention to apply is caused by the Employer Attractiveness.

H3d: Corporate Reputation mediates the relationship between the HVI LinkedIn post and the intention to apply positively. As there is a direct positive significant effect of HVI EBLP on Corporate Reputation β= 0.820, p <.001), and there is a positive significant effect of Corporate Reputation on intention to apply (β =0.482, p <.001), this study concludes that there is a mediating effect of Corporate Reputation on the relationship between HVI EBLP and intention to apply. When the direct effect between HVI EBLP and intention to apply is inspected than this study finds no significant effect between LVE EBLP and intention to apply (β =-0.041, p =.833), this means that there is a full mediating effect of Corporate Reputation on the relationship between HVI EBLP and the intention to apply. H3d is supported.

H3e: Employer Attractiveness mediates the relationship between the HVI LinkedIn post and the intention to apply positively. As there is a direct positive significant effect of HVI EBLP on Employer Attractiveness (β =0.363, p <.05), and there is a positive significant effect of Employer Attractiveness on intention to apply (β =0.411, p <.001), this study concludes that there is a mediating effect of Employer Attractiveness on the relationship between HVI EBLP and intention to apply. When the direct effect

(29)

between HVI EBLP and intention to apply is inspected than this study finds no significant effect between LVE EBLP and intention to apply (β =-0.041, p =.833), this means that there is a full mediating effect of Employer Attractiveness on the relationship between HVI EBLP and the intention to apply. H3e is supported.

The process overall model summary showed that it explains 43% of the variance. R²=.428, F(5,145)=21.709, p <.001. For the control variables gender (β=0.051, p =0.754) and age (β=-0,162, p =0.153) there was no significant effect found.

Figure 9: HVI Results

4.2.4 Low vividness informative (LVI)

H4a: There is no direct effect of LVI EBLP on intention to apply. H4a is supported, (β =-0.118, p=.621). This may imply that the reported effect of LVI EBLP on intention to apply are mainly caused by a mediator.

H4b: There is a direct effect of LVI EBLP on Corporate Reputation. H4b is not supported, as there is no significant effect found (β=0.145, p =.460). This suggests that the corporate reputation does not mediate the relation between LVI EBLP and intention to apply, thus if there is an effect it may be caused by another mediator.

H4c: There is a direct effect of low vividness informative EBLP on Employer Attractiveness. H4c is not supported, as there is no significant effect found (β =-0.264, p =0.133). This suggests that the Employer Attractiveness does not mediate the relation between LVI EBLP and intention to apply, thus if there is an effect it may be caused by another mediator.

(30)

H4d: Corporate Reputation mediates the relationship between the low vividness informative EBLP and the intention to apply negatively. H4d is not supported, since there was no significant effect found from LVI EBLP on Corporate Reputation (β=0.145, p =.460), there cannot be a mediation effect of Corporate Reputation on the LVI EBLP – intention to apply relation.

H4e: Employer Attractiveness mediates the relationship between the low vividness informative EBLP and the intention to apply negatively. H4e is not supported, since there was no significant effect found from LVI EBLP on Employer Attractiveness (β =-0.264, p =0.133), there cannot be a mediation effect of Employer Attractiveness on the LVI EBLP – intention to apply relation.

The process overall model summary showed that it explains 43% of the variance (R²=.428, F(5,145)=21.757, p <.001). For the control variables, gender (β=0.048, p =0.767 and age (β=-0.162, p =0.150) there was no significant effect found.

(31)

(32)

5. Discussion

This chapter describes the conclusions, discusses the most important findings of this study and their relevance to previous research. In the end, it will go in to the managerial implications and

limitations. This research analyzed whether four different types of EBLP had a direct effect on intention to apply and how it was mediated by Corporate Reputation and Employer Attractiveness.

5.1 Conclusions

This research tested whether 4 different types of EBLP, had a significant effect on intention to apply, Corporate Reputation and employer attractiveness. It also tested mediating effects of Corporate Reputation and employer attractiveness on the relationship between EBLP and the intention to apply. The findings support 13 of the 20 hypotheses, the conclusions will be described here.

5.1.1 High vividness entertaining (HVE) EBLP

There was no direct effect found for HVE EBLP on intention to apply. This was expected as entertaining advertisements are designed to attract people (Taylor et al., 2011), before people apply they take more things into consideration (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015). An interesting finding is that HVE EBLP does have a significant effect on Employer Attractiveness. This means that HVE EBLP will increase employer attractiveness This was expected as potential applicants are unlikely to apply without feeling attracted to the employer first (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015). Employer Attractiveness also mediates the relationship HVE EBLP and intention to apply positively. This is in line with our expectations and other recruitment literature (Edwards, 2009).

There was no direct effect found for HVE EBLP on Corporate Reputation, nor was there a mediating effect found between the relationship of HVE EBLP and intention to apply. Our hypotheses is not supported. This may be due to the fact that entertaining posts are seen attractive (Taylor et al., 2011), but not necessarily add any value to a company’s reputation.

5.1.2 Low vividness entertaining (LVE) EBLP

(33)

effect found. This might be due this low vividness message being so unattractive that people got negative attitudes towards the company (Sabate et al., 2014). LVE EBLP also had a negative effect on Corporate Reputation and Employer attractiveness. This was expected since, a message low on vividness is not expected to be perceived as attractive nor will it help a companies’ reputation (Sabate et al., 2014). Therefor Corporate Reputation & Employer Attractiveness also had a negative effect on the mediating relationship of LVE EBLP and intention to apply. This is expected since Edwards (2009) shows that Corporate Reputation and Employer Attractiveness have an effect on intention to apply.

5.1.3 High vividness informative (HVI) EBLP

The findings of this research suggest that there is a positive direct effect of HVI EBLP on intention to apply. This is in line with the expectations that high vividness and informative post, are perceived as attractive (Sabate et al., 2014) and will increase the intention to apply (Edwards, 2009). The findings also show significant relations for HVI EBLP on Corporate Reputation and Employer

Attractiveness. There is also a mediating effect of Corporate Reputation & Employer Attractiveness found on the relationship of HVI EBLP and intention to apply. As mentioned before, is this in line with previous literature (Edwards, 2009).

5.1.4 Low vividness informative (LVI) EBLP

There is no effect from LVI EBLP on intention to apply. This was expected as low vividness posts do not tend to be attractive to persuade people into applying (Sabate et al., 2014). There was a negative effect expected from LVI EBLP on Corporate Reputation and Employer Attractiveness, but neither of these effects were found. Nor were there any mediation effects found of Corporate Reputation and Employer Attractiveness on the relationship between LVI EBLP and intention to apply. Our

hypotheses expecting effecting negative effects were not confirmed. That there are no effects found could be due to messages low on vividness, not being persuasive enough to generate an effect (Herr et al., 1991). It could also be because of the posts not being vivid or informative enough to get enough attention in order to generate any effect (Sabate et al., 2014).

(34)

Table 8. Outcomes

HVE LVE HVI LVI

Direct effect EBLP on intention to apply none - + none Direct effect EBLP on Corporate Reputation none - + none Direct effect EBLP on Employer Attractiveness + - + none Mediating effect Corporate Reputation on the relationship

between EBLP and intention to apply none - + none

Mediating effect Employer Attractiveness on the relationship

between EBLP and intention to apply + - + none

5.2 Discussion

Online employer branding has become a prominent strategic tool in recruitment processes (Elving et al., 2013). Companies are investing a lot of money in employer branding campaigns, as this can

improve employer attractiveness and intention to apply (Backhaus & Tickoo, 2004). 5.2.1 Vividness

Messages high on vividness draw attention and are seen as interesting (Chaudhuri et al., 2014), attention is needed to process the message. Chaudhuri et al., (2014) has proven that content high on vividness has a positive impact on intended behavior. This research confirms these findings. As described in the table above, does HVI EBLP have a positive effect on intention to apply, Corporate Reputation, Employer Attractiveness and mediating effects of Corporate Reputation and Employer Attractiveness. This is in line with previous research that found relations between vividness and influencing evaluations and attractiveness (Herr et al., 1991; Chaudhuri et al., 2014). For HVE EBLP these effects were only found for Employer Attractiveness. Effects on Corporate Reputation were not found, this might be due to entertainment not being perceived as valuable for Corporate Reputation.

Another interesting observation is that LVI EBLP have no effects on IA, Corporate Reputation, Employer Attractiveness. This could be due to people not trusting the information spread by the post (Herr et al., 1991). As in the high vividness condition it contained prove of winning an award. In the LVI, it was only written that an award had been won. Credibility of the message could have been a problem in this LVI EBLP (Herr et al., 1991).

(35)

The LVE EBLP all have negative effects. This confirms our expectations and is in line with Sabate et al., (2014), who found that textual messages were less popular. Low vividness will disempower the message as it is unattractive (Herr et al., 1991) and less credible (Chaudhuri et al., 2014). Therefore, this research suggests not to make use of low vividness EBLP, as it will have no or a negative effect. 5.2.2 Content

Social media have become frequently visited channels for accessing information (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015) and entertainment (de Vries et al., 2012). Social media provides as an excellent tool for communicating the employer brand (Kissel & Buttgen, 2015). A strong employer brand can develop an image or reputation as a good place to work (Edwards, 2009; Kissel & Buttgen, 2015) and can enhance decision behavior (Keller, 1993; Kissel & Büttgen, 2015).

Employer information on social media is likely to affect employer attractiveness and Corporate Reputation (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015). Corporate Reputation and Employer Attractiveness should on their hand affect intention to apply (Edwards, 2009). Our findings support that informative EBLP have a positive effect on Corporate Reputation, Employer Attractiveness and intention to apply, but only when the informative EBLP scores high on vividness. There was no effect found for LVI EBLP, this might be due to low vividness as discussed earlier, or to the length of the content. The informative message was relatively short that it might not have been informative enough for participants to have an effect. As too little or mass information can confuse or disorient potential applicants (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015). The picture would provide extra information and therefore be responsible for the effect found in the HVI EBLP.

Entertaining EBLP only had positive effect on Employer Attractiveness when the entertaining EBLP was high on vividness. Employer Attractiveness also had a mediating effect on entertaining EBLP and intention to apply when it was high on vividness. This is in line with previous research, as

entertaining posts are affecting Employer Attractiveness (Lee & Chen, 2013).

Entertaining EBLP low on vividness, had a negative effect on intention to apply, Corporate Reputation and employer attractiveness. This was expected as a low vividness post makes the brand

(36)

unpopular (Sabate et al., 2014). It could also be due to the content length. The entertaining message was long and could have been perceived as information overload (Jackson & Farzaneh, 2012) that confused participants. The picture (high vividness) in the HVE EBLP could have provided additional information and made it clearer.

5.2.3 Managerial implications

Employer Branding is top priority among human resources and management nowadays (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015). The popularity of social media has given employers a new channel to communicate employer branding messages (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015). It gives companies the chance to communicate information, strengthen their reputation and interact with potential applicants (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015). In the last decade, a lot of research has been done between the relationship employer branding and

reputation, (Edwards, 2009). Nevertheless, has there been little research on the effect of employer branding online, Corporate Reputation, employer attractiveness and the intention to apply. Therefore, our research should help employer brand managers in creating effective EBLP. Our findings suggest, just like Kissel & Büttgen (2015), that social media is useful for improving Corporate Reputation, employer attractiveness and intention to apply. Content is crucial for social media success (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015). Companies should always use EBLP with a high level of vividness, so either containing a picture or a video. Never use textual EBLP by itself. It will have either no or a negative effect on

the intention to apply, Corporate Reputation and employer attractiveness. Both low vividness entertaining and informative EBLP are not recommended.

High vividness posts will be suggested when it contains an informative EBLP. As we found positive effects for that on intention to apply, as well as mediating effects on employer attractiveness and Corporate Reputation. High vividness entertaining posts should only be used when a company wants to increase their Employer Attractiveness and therefore intention to apply.

Human resources and marketing managers should realize how important the content and

vividness is in creating employer branding campaigns. This research highly suggests using high vividness informative EBLP.

(37)

5.3 Limitations

This study has several limitations. First of all, respondents only saw one single post of the company, which can barely be enough in order to decide whether to apply for a job or not. For future research, it could be interesting to see how respondents would react after seeing a post, a video and a vacancy before asking whether they would accept a job offer.

This research only tested the vividness of image and text. It would be interesting to see in future research whether video posts are more effective than pictorial posts. As video posts are perceived as more attractive but also ask for more attention than pictorial posts do (de Vries et al., 2012).

As mentioned earlier in the discussion, the entertaining and informative condition differed in content length. The informative content was relatively short compared to the entertaining content. Confusedness, due to length of the content, could be taken into account. To make a better comparison, future research should focus on the same amount of content. It would also be interesting for future research to find out how much information is perceived as effective and when it becomes an information overload.

Moreover, not only did the content differ in length, the EBLP that were used also differed in language. The informative EBLP was in English and the entertaining EBLP was in Dutch. Both did have the text written in English above it. The Dutch language could have been a distraction for non-Dutch speaking participants. Future research should only use EBLP in one language, so there can be controlled for this.

Besides Corporate Reputation and employer attractiveness, could future research also take attitude into account as mediator, as it is closely related to attractiveness.

Respondents might have been biased about ING. Even though it is asked not to take any previous knowledge about the company into consideration, respondents could still have been biased by the fact that ING logo and name is visible in the posts. ING is also known to be very active in campus recruitment. Most respondents were students who might have seen the posts or been to one of ING’s recruitment activities which could have influenced their perceptions about the company. Future research could also be

(38)

focusing on different industries, sectors or locations, to see whether the results are significant for other businesses as well.

This research is limited to English speaking people and therefore not generalizable for the world population. Extensions to other countries would be helpful (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015) and a

recommendation for future research. As other countries or even different areas within countries might yield different effects. Cultural features might have an effect on employer branding elements.

As the survey has been spread through my personal contacts and social media, the results are not generalizable for the whole population, as most people in my environment may not be representative of the wider population. There were also more girls in this study than boys and only 184 people participated. This sample size decreases internal validity. Future research can focus on getting more participants in all age groups, ethnicities and education levels to make it a more generalizable study.

Most participants were in the end phase of their studies, this could also indicate that they are currently looking for vacancies and are questioning more whether they would want to work at a company or not. They might be more critical, to whether they would intend to apply. Not only were they in most applicants in the end phase of their studies, the survey was also conducted at a crucial time for starters to apply. As this study was conducted in May, a month where a lot of application deadlines for starters are approaching. It would be interesting for future research to determine whether people are more critical in the end phase of their studies, then when they are still in undergrad or already working and if the timing of the research matters.

The last limitation that needs to be pointed out is the fact that people’s intention to apply was measured and not if they actually did. Future research could monitor students in their senior year every time they are being exposed to employer branding and ask after graduation where they actually applied and for what reasons.

Our findings show that social media can be an effectiveness channel for employer branding. Acknowledging all the limitations mentioned above, and the fact that some hypotheses were not

(39)

supported, future research needs to be done to further explore the effect of employer branding on LinkedIn.

(40)

6. References

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York: Free Press.

Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management, 4(3), 185-206.

Argenti, P. A., & Druckenmiller, B. (2004). Reputation and the corporate brand. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(4), 368-374.

Auger, P., Devinney, T.M., Dowling, G.R., Eckert, C., Lin, N., (2013). How much does a company’s reputation matter in recruiting. MITSloan Management Review, retrieved 15-06-2017 from: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-much-does-a-companys-reputation-matter-in-recruiting/. Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career development international, 9(5), 501-517

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in

cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 92-113.

Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Hah, L. L. (2005). Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding. International journal of advertising,24(2), 151- 172.

Buechel, E.C., & Berger (2016). Motivations for consumer engagement with social

media. Consumer psychology in a social media world. Society for consumer psychology. Taylor & Francis.

Boyd, D. M. & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Bolscher, B. (2017). Importance of customer experience and online decision making. Marketing of the 21st_{Century. Marketing Science Institute Research priorities 2016-2020 through the lens of the}

(41)

future marketer, 1, 22-30.

Capelli, P. (2001). Making the most of on-line recruiting. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 139– 146.

Chaudhuri, A., Micu, C., and Bose, M. (2014). Vividness effects on value and risk for radical innovations. Marketing Management Journal, Spring, 35-51.

Collins, C. and Stevens, C., (2002). The relationship between early recruitment-related activities and the application decisions of new labor-market entrants: a brand equity approach to recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1121-1133

Coyle, J. R., and Thorson, E., (2001), The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3) 65–77.

Davison, H.K., Maraist, C. and Bing, M.N. (2011), “Friend or Foe? The promise and pitfalls of using social networking sites for HR decisions”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 153-159.

Eagly, A.H., and Chaicken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace & Janovich.

Edosomwan, S., Prakasan, S. K., Kouame, D., Watson, J., & Seymour, T. (2011). The history of social media and its impact on business. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 16(3), 79-91.

Edwards, M. R. (2009). An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel Review, 39(1), 5-23.

Elving, W. J., Westhoff, J. J., Meeusen, K., & Schoonderbeek, J. W. (2013). The war for talent&quest; The relevance of employer branding in job advertisements for becoming an employer of choice. Journal of Brand Management, 20(5), 355-373.

Fombrun, C.J., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation quotient: A multi- stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 7(4), 241- 255.

(42)

and Involvement with a Web-Based Advertisement,” Journal of Business Research, 58, 3, 387–96. Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M.A., and Lautenschlager, G.J. (1993). Corporate Image, Recruitment Image and Initioal Job Choice Decisions. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 414-427. Green, M.C., and Clark, J. (2016). Individual and Situational Influences on the Effectiveness of Social Media. Consumer psychology in a social media world. Society for consumer psychology. Taylor & Francis.

Gomes, D., & Neves, J. (2011). Organizational attractiveness and prospective applicants' intentions to apply. Personnel Review, 40(6), 684-699.

Gullen, P. (1993) Measuring the quality of television viewing and its link with advertising effectiveness. Paper presented at the Marketing Week/Carat UK Value of Quality Television Seminar, London.

Herr, P. M., F. R. Kardes, & J. Kim (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnostic perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 454-462.

Herriot, P., & Rothwell, C. (1981). Organizational choice and decision theory: Effects of employers’ literature and selection interview. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 54, 17-31.

Hsieh, Y., and, Chen, K. (2011). How different information types affect viewer’s attention on internet advertising. Journal Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 935-945.

Jackson, T.W., and, Farzaneh, P., (2012). Theory-based model of factors affecting information overload. Journal of Information Management, 32(6), 5230532.

Kaplan, A. M. & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, Unite. The Chalenges and Opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons 53 (1): 59-68.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 1 January 1993, Vol.57(1), pp.1-22.

Kissel, P., and Büttgen, M., (2016). Using Social Media to Communicate Employer Brand Identity: The Impact on Corporate Image and Employer Attractiveness. Journal of Brand Management,

(43)

22(9) 755-777.

Lee, M. J., Chen, Y. (2013). Underage drinkers' responses to negative-restrictive versus proactive-nonrestrictive slogans in humorous anti–alcohol abuse messages: Are humorous responsible drinking campaign nessages effective? Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, 18, 354-368

Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003) The Relation of Instrumental and Symbolic Attributes to a Company's Attractiveness as an Employer. Personnel Psychology, 56, 75–102

Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G. and Anseel, F. (2007) Organisational Identity and Employer Image: Towards a unifying framework. British Journal of Management, 18, 45–59.

Lin, K., and Lu, H., (2011), Why People Use Social Networking Sites: An Empirical Study Integrating Network Externalities and Motivation Theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27,(3,)1152– 1161.

About LinkedIn. (2017, 24 March). Retrieved from https://press.linkedin.com/nl-nl/about-linkedin?#

Madera, J.M. (2012). Using social networking websites as a selection tool: the role of selection process fairness and job pursuit intentions, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1276-1282.

Mangold, W.G., and Faulds, D.J. (2009). Social Media: the new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52, 357-365.

Mantel, S.P., Cronley, M.L., Cohen, J.L., and Kardes, F.R. (2016). Resistance to electronic word of mouth as a function of the message source and context. Consumer psychology in a social media world. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, p. 40-52.

Meijburg, M. (2013). LinkedIn marketing. Uitgeverij Haystack.

Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2013). Beyond liking or following: Understanding public engagement on social networking sites in China. Public Relations Review, 39(1), 13-22.

How does employer branding on LinkedIn affect the corporate reputation, employer attractiveness and the intention to apply?