Application of the Instrumental-Symbolic Framework within an Employer

Positioning Context: A Test Using Perceptual Maps

Martin Lauzier
Université du Québec en Outaouais

Marc Roy
Université du Québec à Rimouski

This study investigates the use and validity of perceptual mapping as a tool for employer positioning from
a human resources management standpoint.The main objective of this research aims at assessing the
potential use of perceptual maps for employer positioning. Hence, based on the identification of singular
attributes specific to every employer, this study tends to evaluate the incremental value that perceptual
maps can offer to the development of a value proposition. Results show potential for the use of perceptual
mapping within an Employer Branding context. Theoretical and practical recommendations concerning
the application of this technique close the paper.

INTRODUCTION

Branding is well established as a marketing strategy (Gardner & Levy, 1955), and for most
organizations today no market is more competitive that the market for employees. The employer brand
establishes the identity of the firm as an employer. "It encompasses the firm’s values, systems, policies,
and behaviors toward the objectives of attracting, motivating, and retaining the firm’s current and
potential employees" (Conference Board, 2001; p. 10). As for Employer Branding (EB), it can rather be
defined as: "the effort to promote, both within and outside the firm, a clear view of what makes it different
and desirable as an employer" (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; p. 502). Implicitly, these definitions put
emphasis on the importance of differencing the characteristics of a particular organization with those of
its competitors. Thus, EB entails distinguising the company’s branding message so as to appeal to current
and future employees, in a way that set it apart from competitors fighting for the same talent pool
(Sutherland, Torricelli, & Karg, 2002).
In the literature, employer brand is generally conceived as resulting from a substantial process that is
made up of three different stages. First, there is the elaboration of the "value proposition". This
proposition represents in concrete terms what an employer offers to his employees or to potential
employees (e.g. a stimulating job, good working conditions). Secondly, the value proposition has then to
be publicized through the promotion mechanisms given to the company (e.g. recruitment campaigns,
employment agencies). The "external" marketing of the proposition aims mainly at attracting new
talented candidates. Although promotion is usually made from outside the walls of the firm, it must be
recognized that these promotional efforts do not go without influencing current employees’ perception of
the company. For example Lievens, Van Hoye and Anseel (2007) found that employees grant significant

Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 11(2) 2011 35

importance to the way their employer is perceived by the general population. Thirdly, the proposition’s
"internal" marketing represents the last stage of the process and aims essentially at promoting it within
the company. It is on this last stage that rests all the success of the firm’s strategy, considering the fact
that it portrays the different aspects of the psychological contract on which is built the employees-
employer relation (Moroko & Uncles, 2008).

Perceptual Mapping in Marketing

Analysis of consumer perceptions occupies, still today, a large place in the marketing literature, both
on the scientific level (e.g. Bloom, Hoeffler, Keller, & Basurto Meza, 2006; Temsamani, Mathieu &
Parissier, 2007) and functional (or business) level (e.g. Carpenter & Moore, 2006). The majority of
experts consider that perceptions are at the basis of marketing mix objectives determination of an
organization, given their influence on consumer preferences (Murphy & Butt, 2007). Indeed, knowledge
of a buyer’s perception of a given object (e.g. a brand, a store or an advertisement) enables us to forecast
their preferences for that same object (d’Astous, 2005).
Perceptual maps are used since the sixties by marketing managers to analyze consumer perceptions
(e.g. Hauser & Koppelman, 1979). Hence they have the unique characteristic of making it possible to
illustrate complex relationships between competitors in a market, and the attributes used by consumers to
make their purchase decisions. They allow managers to have a global vision of the strengths and
weaknesses of their product and service offering, in connection with those of their competitors (Lilien,
Rangaswamy, Bruggen, & Starke, 2004). Two of the methods most commonly used by marketing
specialists are Factor Analysis and Discriminant Analysis (Nargundkar, 2003). Factor Analysis is
essentially a data reduction technique whose objective is to represent a group of attributes in a smaller
number of what is commonly known as factors. Thus, after identifying the factors, they are used to
position the compared products in the perceptual space (Malhotra, 2007). Similarly, Discriminant
Analysis (DA) aims also at reducing a number of attributes to a smaller quantity of dimensions. However,
DA targets attributes that demonstrate the strongest differences between products. As a result, DA usually
produces a smaller number of dimensions than Factorial Analysis. Also, Factorial Analysis tends to create
dimensions which contain a good part of the total variation, even if these dimensions do not significantly
explain the differences between the compared products (Hauser & Koppelman, 1979). Preference for
either of the methods depends on the main objective of the research.

Perceptual Mapping in Human Resources Management

Most specialists agree to recognize that the EB concept could contribute greatly to human resources
management (Berthon, Ewing, & Hah, 2005; Ewing, Pitt, Bussy, & Berthon, 2002), and this notably by
applying principles related to marketing theories (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Cable & Turban, 2001). The
literature on the subject provides a number of characteristics that might influence the success of an
organization in terms of EB. Generally, researchers agree that two categories of different attributes should
be retained, referring to the so-called instrumental and symbolic framework (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004;
Kausel & Slaughter, 2011; Lievens, 2007; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Lievens, Van Hoye, & Anseel,
2007; Van Hoye & Saks, 2010; Walker et al., 2011). The instrumental attributes refer to the factual
conditions bound to the job occupied by the worker (e.g. basic salary, fringe benefits). As for symbolic
attributes, they rather make reference to abstract and intangible perceptions of the benefits of working for
a particular company (e.g. fun work environment, acceptance and belonging).

Research Objectives
The main objective of this study aims at assessing the potential use of perceptual maps for employer
positioning. Hence, based on the identification of singular attributes specific to every employer (i.e.
instrumental and symbolic); our study aspires at evaluating the incremental value that perceptual maps
can offer to the development of a value proposition.

36 Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 11(2) 2011

METHOD

Step 1 – Development and Validation of Independent and Dependent Measures

Participants
Sixty-three (n = 63) students, enrolled in business administration at a Quebec (Canada) University,
participated in this first part of the study. Their age varies from 19 to 48 (M = 23.60; SD = 4.86). The
sample consisted mainly of women (36; 57.4 %).

Procedure
First, we made a review of the literature of the most recent writings on the issue of EB and conducted
a series of focus groups with doctoral students and university professors. The idea was to bring them to
consider attributes that may appear in a value proposal made by an employer. This exercise helped
produce a prior list consisting of 20 potential attributes. Each of the attributes on this first list was
formulated as a generic statement (e.g. Opportunities to take part in training and development activities).
Secondly, the list of attributes was presented to a group of undergraduate students. Two specific
instructions were given to participants: a) classify statements as to their capability to depict the level of
attractiveness of a potential employer, by ranking first the statement which corresponded to a maximum
level of interest, and last the one being linked with the least level of interest and b) score each statement,
using a ten-point relative importance scale (0 = Not at all important for me; 10 = Very important for me).
Rankings, means and standard deviations of each of the attributes appear in Table 1.

TABLE 1
RANKGINS, MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE EMPLOYERS ATTRIBUTES

Ranking M SD
1. A fun working environment* 1 9.28 1.41
2. A competitive and above average salary* 2 8.23 2.24
3. The organization offer possibilities to balance work/life 3 6.61 2.79
4. An attractive overall compensation package* 4 8.30 1.42
5. Opportunities to take part in training and development activities* 7 8.03 1.81
6. A secure and healthy working environment* 5 7.43 2.36
7. Working for a prestigious organization (employer of choice) 15 3.84 2.53
8. Feeling good about yourself as a result of working for a particular organization 11 7.04 2.21
9. Recognition/appreciation from management 12 7.63 1.70
10. Working for an employer who respect human, morale and ethical values 13 6.40 2.54
11. Humanitarian organization – gives back to society 18 4.49 2.49
12. The organization produces high-quality products and services 19 4.21 2.19
13. The financial performance of the organization is high 17 4.05 2.14
14. Gaining career enhancing experience* 6 7.69 2.23
15. Having a good relationship with your supervisors* 10 7.16 2.46
16. Having a good relationship with your colleagues* 9 7.56 2.07
17. Inovative employer – novel work practice/foward-thinking 20 4.44 2.33
18. Job security within organization 8 6.86 2.07
19. Opportunity to travel (job related) 16 5.91 2.97
20. The organization is flexible in regards the way you accomplish your work 14 7.27 2.05

Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 11(2) 2011 37

 It should be noted that only attributes marked with an asterisk have been selected for the second part
of the experiment. In order to be retained, an attribute needed to satisfy two conditions, that is, a) to be
ranked in the top 10 for the attractiveness measure and b) to have an average score of at least 7 on the
relative importance scale. Based on these indicators, and considering prior marketing research (e.g.
Aaker, 2000; Ahluwalia & Gürhan-Canli, 2000; Meyvis & Janiszewski, 2002), only eight (8) attributes
were kept.
The third step was the choice of companies to be tested, this to draw up a list of potential employers
for the participants in the second part of the research. This selection was made by using business indexes
found in the specialized print media. For the purposes of our study, we chose to use ranking indexes
published by Les Affaires newspaper which publishes, among others, two business classification
indicators, namely: a) a ranking based on profitability and b) a ranking based on popularity. Two key
premises guided our judgment in the choice of the employers. First, to be retained, the companies had to
be included in the list of the 100 most profitable Quebec companies. Then, those that met this criterion
had also to appear in the list of the 150 companies most admired by Canadians. Finally, they had to be
part of distinct industrial or commercial sectors and be easily recognizable by undergraduate business
administration students. Backed up by these criteria we made a selection consisting of only five (5)
employers. These employers, as well as their respective positions on each of the indexes, are presented in
Table 2.

TABLE 2
LIST OF THE EMPLOYER CHOSSEN AND THEIR RANKING ON THE TWO INDEXES

Profitability index Popularity index

A. Rona 4 5
B. Desjardins 1 53
C. IGA 3 21
D. Via Rail 87 30
E. Bombardier 7 22

Step 2 - Elaboration of the Perceptual Map

Participants
Sixty-one (n = 61) students enrolled in business administration at another Quebec University,
participated in this second part of the study. Their age varies from 19 to 31 (M = 23.30; SD = 2.60). The
sample consisted mainly of women (37; 60.1 %). No significant statistical differences between data
coming from the first and second samples were found, leading us to conclude that the samples used for
the purposes of this study are similar regarding to the age and sex of the participants.

Procedure
A questionnaire was administered to the second group of undergraduate students. Once again,
participation to this second part of the study was on a voluntary and anonymous basis. Participants were
required to evaluate the five potential employers using the eight attributes retained after stage 1, using a
five point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree). Employers were depicted in the
questionnaire through the use of their corporate logos, on which the business name was clearly visible.
Multiple versions of the questionnaire were produced, in order to vary the display of the employers and
attributes, and to avoid any unwanted effect that could have influenced the outcome. The students were
also notified to particularly pay attention to the meaning of each criterion while carrying out their

38 Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 11(2) 2011

evaluations. Finally, students were also instructed to evaluate the employers with the viewpoint of
occupying, after graduation, a staff position with each of them.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses
Skewness and Kurtosis were calculated in order to verify that all variables were normally distributed.
Our observations indicate that all the variables in the study are distributed within the accepted limits of
normality (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006). The symmetry coefficients observed for each attributes range
from -0.61 to -0.15 (SD = 0.14 to 0.15), while flattening coefficients vary between -1.04 and 0.66 (SD =
0.27 to 0.28).

Respect of Underlying Principles and Conditions

To ensure compliance with the conditions underlying the DA, we performed the Box and Wilks'
Lambda tests. The Box test result gives an M value of 206.74 (p < .01). This enables us to conclude that
intra-class covariance matrices are different. The Wilk’s Lambda test allows us to verify if the mean
vectors for the various groups are equal or not. For this second test, we obtained a result of 0.29 (p < .01),
which enables us to conclude that at least one of the 5 group eigenvector means is different from another.
The DA produced a four factor solution. This is typical considering that the maximum number of
factors is equal to k-1 (when n > p > k), where n is the number of observations, p the number of
explanatory variables, and k the number of groups. Eigenvalues, proportions of explained variance as well
as the canonical correlation coefficients related to each factors are displayed in Table 3. The first factor
produced accounts for 71.77 % of the explained variance. A second factor explains 25.56 % of the
variance. The two residual factors induced account for only 2.30% and 0.49% of the explained variance.
Together, the first two factors monopolize 97.21 % of the variance produced by the eight explanatory
variables, which therefore tends to confirm the existence of a two-dimensional perceptual space.

TABLE 3
FACTOR SOLUTION OF THE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

Factors Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Canonical R

1 1.26 71.77 71.77 0.75

2 0.45 25.56 97.21 0.56
3 0.04 2.30 99.51 0.20
4 0.01 0.49 100.00 0.10

Results of the Discriminant Analysis

The five selected organizations served as dependent variable for the DA, while the eight attributes
served as independent variables. Graph 1 illustrates how the eight explanatory variables are correlated
with the two significant factors. Reading the chart, it is possible to identify the attribute groupings
contributing to the explanation of employer perceptions. Actually, it seems that the first factor represents
instrumental attributes, namely: 2-A competitive and above average salary [Factor loading = 0.92]; 4-An
attractive overall compensation package [Factor loading = 0.90]; 14-Gaining career enhancing
experience [Factor loading = 0.82]; 5-Opportunities to take part in training and development activities
[Factor loading = 0.76]. As for the second factor, it consists of symbolic attributes, namely: 1-A fun
working environment [Factor loading = 0.73]; 16- Having a good relationship with your colleagues
[Factor loading = 0.53]; 6-A secure and healthy working environment [Factor loading = 0.51]. The degree

Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 11(2) 2011 39

of affiliation of all the attributes with their respective factor seems adequate, considering the fact that they
hold a factor loading greater than 0.50 on the factor of attribution and lower than 0.35 on the opposite
factor (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006), except for attribute 15 (i.e. Having a good relationship with your
supervisors), which cannot be clearly associated with any of the factors.

GRAPH 1
FACTOR AFFILIATION AND ATTRIBUTE GROUPINGS

1
0,75

6
0,5 16

0,25 15 5 14
F2 (25,56 %)

4
0

-0,25 2

-0,5

-0,75

-1
-1 -0,75 -0,5 -0,25 0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1

F1 (71,65 %)

Graph 2 presents an arrangement of the data such as issued by the participants in the study (n = 61) on
both previously discussed factorial axes. This chart also enables us to locate the centroids corresponding
to each of the employers. The centroids represent the average scores obtained by the five employers on
both discriminate functions. They thus summarize the position of the employers in the space defined by
the discriminant functions.
At first glance, it appears that respondents have perceived in the most favorable way the working
conditions offered by employer B (i.e. Desjardins), and this, both in regards to the instrumental and
symbolic attributes. This result explains the distinctive positioning of that particular employer in regard to
the others.
An additional conclusion relates to the locations of the four remaining employers, which were divided
into two distinct groupings. The location of the first grouping of employers, consisting of A (Rona) and C
(IGA), shows that they have been less well perceived by respondents throughout their evaluation. This is
accounted for, in particular, because of low scores held by these employers, as much for the instrumental
attributes than for the symbolic ones.
As for the second grouping of employers, consisting of D (Via Rail) and E (Bombardier), it appears
the respondents favorably perceived the working conditions offered by these employers on the
instrumental attributes front, but to a lesser extent on symbolic attributes.

40 Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 11(2) 2011

 GRAPH 2
CARTOGRAPHY OF EMPLOYER POSITIONING

3
B

1
F2 (25,56 %)

-5 -3 -1 1 3 5
-1

A
E
C
-3
D

-5
F1 (71,65 %)

Table 4 depicts the confusion matrix used to assess the validity of the results generated by the DA.
The genuine category memberships are displayed by rows, while those predicted by the analysis are
distributed by columns. The last column of the matrix shows the rates (%) of successful reclassification,
based on the information obtained for the eight attributes. A detailed analysis of the matrix allows us to
corroborate the findings observed previously. In fact, it is not surprising that the company that was
reclassified with the best success rate was Desjardins (77.05 %; 47/61), while Bombardier got the lowest
rate with 52.46 % (32/61).

TABLE 4
CONFUSION MATRIX FOR THE ESTIMATION SAMPLE

A B C D E Total %
A. Rona 38 5 15 1 2 61 62.30
B. Desjardins 2 47 2 4 6 61 77.05
C. IGA 18 2 34 1 6 61 55.74
D. Via Rail 2 5 4 37 13 61 60.66
E. Bombardier 3 9 2 15 32 61 52.46
Total 63 68 57 58 59 305 61.64

Overall, the five employers have been reclassified with a success rate of 61.64% (188/305), which is
much higher than the percentage of assessments that would have been assigned to employers by chance
(i.e. 20.00%). Further analysis of the matrix allows us to point out that the vast majority of bad

Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 11(2) 2011 41

reclassifications are for the two employer groupings previously identified. Thus, the majority of
assessments wrongly classified for IGA were assigned to Rona (66.66%; 18/27), while the reverse has
occurred in 65.22 % (15/23) of cases. Similar results were observed for Via Rail and Bombardier. As a
matter of fact, we notice that the majority of evaluations incorrectly classified for Via Rail were credited
to Bombardier in a 54.16% (13/24) proportion, while the opposite occurred at a rate of 51.72 % (15/29).

DISCUSSION

First, it is important to mention that the observed findings, although they do have some rallying
features, also show some fogginess. In fact, it appears that regarding the working conditions offered by
Desjardins, the average perception of the participants is clearly distanced in regard to that of the other
employers. As shown previously, the other four employers have been split into pairs. De facto, based on
our observations, we are tempted to conclude that the perceptual map only allows discriminating between
three categories of employers, namely those that have to do with: a) retail, b) transport and c) financial
services. Clearly, the analysis did not distinguish between Rona and IGA. It seems likely that the majority
of participants considered that working conditions are similar in both these organizations, and this, despite
the guidelines that had been given to them. The fact that Rona and IGA are both in retail probably
explains much of this connection. To a lesser extent, Via Rail and Bombardier were also linked by the
participants. It may be assumed that working conditions in these two companies were less well-known by
the students and that because they both are related to transport, they may have been draw together in the
minds of the participants.
Complementary analysis allows us, once more, to bring some support to our observations. At the end
of the experiment, we asked the respondents to tell us for which employer they would prefer working
after graduation (i.e. employer of choice). The results are in line with our findings. Employers have been
chosen by participants in the following proportions: 49.18% (30/61) for Desjardins; 26.23% (16/61) for
Bombardier; 19.67% (12/61) for Via Rail; 4.92% (3/61) for IGA and no participants have picked Rona.

Limitations, Considerations and Futures Recommendations

A first limit centers on the choice of the attributes for judging the level of attractiveness of a given
employer. The attribute list used in this study partly resembled that of Berthon, Ewing and Hah (2005).
Hence it possible that these attributes may be more appropriate for captivating attractiveness of a given
employer, which only represent a portion of the EB reality characterizing that same employer. This being
said, we understand that there are numerous ways of defining the attributes comprised in a value proposal
promoted by an employer. Some relate to working conditions (e.g. Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Berthon,
Ewing, & Hah, 2005, Lievens & Highhouse, 2003), some focus on workers’ values (e.g. Stinghamber &
Vandenberghe, 2004), while others relate to specific elements of the corporate personality (e.g. Davies,
2008; Davies et al., 2004). Considering our results, despite agreement between researchers in regard to
the importance of symbolic attributes for the perception of organizational attractiveness (e.g. Highhouse,
Thornbury, & Little, 2007; Lievens, 2007; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Lievens, Van Hoye, & Schreurs,
2005; Slaughter, Zickar, Highhouse, & Mohr, 2004), we know little about the antecedent of these
attributes or how the develop in the mind of job seekers (Walkers et al., 2011). Past studies, including
ours, have use presently available proxies in order to capture the quintessence of symbolism. Still we lack
a clear understanding of what actually constitute symbolism and how organizations can manage their
symbolic brand image. Hence, we think that more research efforts are needed in order to clarify the
nomological net linking each dimension of theses typologies to EB, and thus enable employers to
elaborate perceptual maps using valid and significant attributes that better capture the essence of their
own reality.
A second limit deals with the choice of the various employers acting as the dependent variable in the
study. On this, our results are clear. The selected employers do not all activate the same cognitive scheme
among the participants. Some of them knew at least one of the employers better than the others. To this
we must also add the potential effect of the geographical location of the employers. It may therefore be

42 Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 11(2) 2011

difficult for a student (or even a future employee) to accurately evaluate an employer he does not know,
or even worse, an employer for which he will probably never even want to work for.
Due to its exploratory nature, we cannot generalize the findings observed in our study to other
populations than that of university students. In this regard, Calder, Philips and Tybout (1981) argue that
students can be acceptable theory-testing subjects when the object of study is to evaluate the multivariate
relationship among constructs (our case), rather than the univariate differences between distinct samples
(e.g. students vs workers). It is our opinion that, because they are a year or two away from entering the job
market, students may be considered ideal candidates for employer advertising and recruitment campaigns.
Also, we only studied the application of perceptual maps for the sake of positioning employers of future
workers (see students), while the application of such a technique could yield some significant potential for
assessing how clear the value proposal of a given employer is, by using its employees as the target
population (Lievens, Van Hoye, & Anseel, 2007; Van Hoye & Saks, 2010).
Thus, several lines of thought are offered to the application of perceptual maps with regard to EB.
Obviously, future researches are needed in order to deepen the investigation initiated by this study, in
order to better understand the mechanisms underlying employer positioning.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (2000). The Next Level of the Brand Revolution. The Free Press, New York.

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

Ahluwalia, R., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2000). The effects of extensions on the family brand name: an
accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(12), 371-381.

Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career
Development International, 9(5), 501-517.

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

Bloom, P. N., Hoeffler, S., Keller, K. L., & Basurto Meza, C. E. (2006). How social-cause marketing
affects consumer perceptions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(2), 49-55.

Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2001). Establishing the dimensions, sources and value of job seeker’s
employer knowledge during recruitment. In G.R. Ferris (ed.), Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, Elsevier Science: NY, 115-163.

Calder, B. J., Philips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for application. Journal of
Consumer Research, 8 (September), 197-207.

Carpenter, J. M., & Moore, M. (2006). Consumer demographics, store attributes, and retail format choice
in the US grocery market. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 34(6), 434-447.

Conference Board. (2001). Engaging Employees, Through Your Brand. Research Report 1288-01-RR,
New York: NY.

d’Astous, A. (2005). Le projet de recherche en marketing [Research Project in Marketing]. (3rd ed.).
Chenelière Éducation, Montréal.

Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 11(2) 2011 43

Davies, G. (2008). Employer branding and its influence on managers. European Journal of Marketing,
42, 667-681.

Davies, G., Chun., R., da Silva, R. V., & Roper, S. (2004). A corporate character scale to assess employee
and customer views of organization reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 125-146.

Ewing, M. T., Pitt, L. F., de Bussy, N. M., & Berthon, P. (2002). Employment branding in the knowledge
economy. International Journal of Advertising, 21, 3-22.

Gardner, B. B., & Levy, S. J. (1955). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review, 33, 33-39.

Hauser, J. R., & Koppelman, F. S. (1979). Alternative perceptual mapping techniques: relative accuracy
and usefulness. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(11), 495-506.

Highhouse, S., Thronbury, E. E., & Little, I. S. (2007). Social-identity function of attraction to
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 134-146.

Kausel, E. E., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Narrow personality traits and organizational attraction: evidence
for the complementary hypothesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 3-14.

Lievens, F. (2007). Employer branding in the Belgian army: the importance of instrumental attributes and
symbolic beliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants, and military employees. Human Resource
Management, 46, 51-69.

Lievens, F., & 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., & Anseel, F. (2007). Organizational identity and employer image: towards a
unifying framework. British Journal of Management, 18, 45-59.

Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G., & Schreurs, B. (2005). Examining the relationship between employer
knowledge dimensions and organizational attractiveness: an application in a military context. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 553-572.

Lilien, G., Rangaswamy, A., Bruggen, G. H., & Starke, K. (2004). DSS effectiveness in marketing
resource allocation decisions: reality versus perceptions. Information Systems Research, 9, 216-235.

Malhotra, N. (2007). Études marketing avec SPSS [Studying Marketing with SPSS]. (5th ed.). Pearson
Education, Paris.

Meyvis, T. & Janiszewski, C. (2002). Consumers' beliefs about product benefits: the effect of obviously
irrelevant information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 618-636.

Moroko, L., & Uncles, M. D. (2008). Characteristics of successful employer brands. Brand Management,
16(3), 160-175.

Murphy, S. A., Butt, I., & Papadopoulos, N. (2007). The role of affect in the development of positioning
strategy and judgements. ASAC Proceedings – Marketing Division, 28(3), 146-154.

Nargundkar, R. (2003). Marketing Research. (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.

44 Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 11(2) 2011

Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Favorable job conditions and perceived support: the role
of organizations and supervisors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(7), 1470-1493.

Sutherland, M. M., Torricelli, G. G., & Karg, R. F. (2002). Employer-of-choice branding for knowledge
workers. South African Journal of Management, 33(4), 13-20.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon, 1008p.

Temsamani, J., Mathieu, A., & Parissier, C. (2007). L’impact des dimensions du produit sur la valeur
perçue globale [Impact of Product Dimensions on it’s Global Perceived Value]. ASAC Proceedings –
Marketing Division, 28(3), 88-100.

Van Hoye, G., & Saks, A. M. (2010). The instrumental-symbolic framework: organisational image and
attractiveness of potential applicants and their companions at a Job fair. Applied Psychology: an
International Review, 60(2), 1-25.

Walker, H. J., Field, H. S., Giles, W. F., Bernerth, J. B., & Short, J. C. (2011). So what do you think of
the organization? A contextual priming explanation for recrutement Web site characteristics as
antecedents of job seekers’ organizational image perception. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 114, 165-178.

Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 11(2) 2011 45