REVISITING MET EXPECTATIONS AS A REASON WHY REALISTIC JOB PREVIEWS WORK

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.