The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Research on Employee Recruitment: So Many Studies, So Many Remaining Questions
Abstract
Over the last thirty years, the amount of research on recruitment topics has increased dramatically. Despite this increase, recent reviews of the recruitment literature often have had a somewhat pessimistic tone. Reviewers have concluded that we still do not know a great deal about why recruitment activities have the effects they do. In particular, recent reviews have criticized many of the studies conducted for being poorly designed, narrow in focus, and not grounded in theory. We believe that many of these criticisms are legitimate. We also believe that, in order for future studies to result in a better understanding of the recruitment process, such studies need to be designed with an appreciation of the complexity of the recruitment process (i.e., the number of variables involved and the nature of their relationships). In this regard, we offer an organizing framework of the recruitment process. In introducing this framework, we draw upon theories from a variety of research domains and give considerable attention to process variables (e.g., aplicant attention, message credibility, applicant self-insight) that mediate the relationships between recruitment activities (e.g., recruiter behavior) and recruitment outcomes (e.g., the number of applications generated). Having introduced an organizing framework, we selectively review recruitment research, giving particular attention to the topics of recruitment sources, recruiters, and realistic job previews. This review makes apparent a number of important issues that recruitment research has yet to address.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.003043 · Cited by 518
Cited by
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.928 · Cited by 1,182
Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta‐Analysis
Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00003.x · Cited by 816
Jones, D. A., Willness, C. R., & Madey, S. (2014) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0848 · Cited by 722
AVERY, D. R., & McKAY, P. F. (2006) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00807.x · Cited by 396
Why Are Individuals Attracted to Organizations?
Ehrhart, K. H., & Ziegert, J. C. (2005) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206305279759 · Cited by 375
Metadata
- Authors
- Breaugh, J. A., & Starke, M. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publishing
- Published
- 2000-01-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 405-434
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2097030212
- Cited by
- 795
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Research on Employee Recruitment: So Many Studies, So Many Remaining Questions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0149-2063(00)00045-3
- The paper
- Breaugh, J. A., & Starke, M. L. (2000). Research on Employee Recruitment: So Many Studies, So Many Remaining Questions. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063(00)00045-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.