Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Does Electronic Word of Mouth
Does Electronic Word of Mouth
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-8269.htm
E-recruitment
Does electronic word-of-mouth adoption
influence e-recruitment adoption?
A mediation analysis using the
PLS-SEM approach
Davinder Kaur and Rajpreet Kaur Received 28 April 2021
Revised 16 July 2021
Department of Management, IK Gujral Punjab Technical University Jalandhar, 10 January 2022
Kapurthala, India 28 January 2022
Accepted 8 March 2022
Abstract
Purpose – E-recruiting has been a powerful tool for reaching the majority of job applicants around the
world. Even though, previous literature has scarcely shed light on the factors responsible for the adoption of
e-recruitment among job candidates. Originated from the technology acceptance model (TAM), this study
aims to empirically examine the influence of online word-of-mouth in shaping job-seekers’ intentions for using
e-recruitment websites.
Design/methodology/approach – A Google Docs-based online questionnaire was distributed via social
media, LinkedIn and email to 740 participants, out of which 397 final responses were received. The partial least
squares structural equation modeling using SmartPLS 3 was applied for evaluating the theoretical model.
Findings – This study empirically indicated that electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) has a significant
impact on perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU) and attitude. Whereas, PU and attitude
fully mediate the relationship between eWOM and behavioral intentions (BI) of job-seekers towards
e-recruitment.
Practical implications – This research contributes to the understanding of the relevance of eWOM in
e-recruitment adoption. eWOM provides job-related information that plays a significant role in the usage of
online recruitment systems such as LinkedIn, job portals and company websites. This study offered a
valuable contribution to the existing body of literature on e-recruitment, developers and Web-based hiring
service providers.
Originality/value – This investigation was the first attempt in the e-recruitment literature to explore the
influence of eWOM on job-seekers’ intentions to adopt online recruitment platforms, including the mediating
role of PU, PEOU and attitude in the association between eWOM and BI.
Keywords Human resource management, PLS-SEM, Technology acceptance model, Attitude,
Electronic word-of-mouth, E-recruitment, Job-seekers’ intentions
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Recruitment is the approach of targeting a reservoir of potential candidates for a particular
work position (Brandão et al., 2019). With the advancement in information technology in the
early 1990s, the change from traditional methods of recruiting applicants to internet
recruitment was dramatic (García-Izquierdo et al., 2010; Kashi and Zheng, 2013). Both job-
seekers and recruiters have moved toward e-recruitment platforms (Sylva and Mol, 2009).
Electronic recruitment has not only changed the point of view of job-seekers regarding
Management Research Review
The authors would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions. © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
Declaration of conflicting interest: The author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest. DOI 10.1108/MRR-04-2021-0322
MRR searching and applying for jobs but has also transformed the way organizations attract
new candidates toward job positions. Candidates consider Web-based recruiting as a
beneficial approach for gathering comprehensive information related to jobs and companies
(Monavarian et al., 2010; Sylva and Mol, 2009).
Today majority of recruitment activities are taken through online platforms. This trend
has become “the new recruitment frontier” in the present era (Priyadarshini et al., 2017).
Web-based recruiting is an essential source of recruitment in an ever-changing environment
(Rosoiu and Popescu, 2016) where emerging innovations are rapidly developing (Petre et al.,
2016). The number of job-seekers using this method of recruiting is steadily increasing, and
e-recruitment portals (or career websites) and social networking websites are seeing
significant growth (Ouirdi et al., 2016). Even though recent developments advocate that
Web-based recruitment platforms are becoming increasingly critical in producing the
requisite pool of applicants, little is understood on how online portals impact job-seekers’
intention to search and apply for jobs (Anderson, 2003; Brandão et al., 2019; Kashi and
Zheng, 2013).
Online recruitment remains an under-researched topic, specifically regarding the
external forces that influence the intentions of job-seekers toward the adoption of
e-recruitment systems. Applicants are highly affected by the informal information gained in
form of word-of-mouth (WOM). According to Van Hoye (2013), WOM is a powerful source of
getting career-related information. With the advent of digital technology, an increasing
number of job searchers are using the internet to research jobs, employers and
organizations. Previously, WOM communication was defined as a person-to-person
discussion between customers regarding a good or service (Chatterjee, 2001); however, with
the emergence of the internet, the widespread availability of WOM communication via
email, chatrooms, weblogs, electronic boards and social media platforms is now called
electronic WOM (eWOM) (Chung and Shin, 2010; Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007; Jalilvand and
Samiei, 2012a; Parry et al., 2012).
In recent times, various theories and constructs have been introduced from the marketing
area to the job search and recruitment field (Van Hoye et al., 2016) because of the significant
similarity between customer purchase intentions and job-seeker intentions as both aim to
attract people to a product or service or job (Van Hoye, 2013; Maurer and Liu, 2007). In
marketing literature, eWOM communication is regarded as a crucial factor that formulates
attitudes and behavioral intentions (BI) of customers toward a particular product, service
and brand (Jalilvand and Samiei, 2012a). In recruitment literature, researchers have studied
the influence of eWOM on job-seekers’ attraction towards the organization and employer,
organizational image and application decisions (Ahamad, 2019; Evertz et al., 2019; Van Hoye
et al., 2016; Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007; Sun et al., 2013). Despite the significant impact of
eWOM in the recruitment scenario, no research is conducted on the influence of eWOM on
job-seekers’ intentions toward the adoption of e-recruitment sites. The technology
acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) is used as a theoretical foundation for examining the
influence of eWOM on job-seekers’ attitudes and intentions.
This research aims to narrow the gaps raised by the existing literature to explore the role
of eWOM on job seekers’ adoption intentions toward e-recruitment. To answer this research
question, the study formulates a theoretical model that describes how eWOM shapes job
seekers’ attitudes and intentions toward electronic recruiting sites. The outcomes of the
study can aid companies and Web developers in gaining a clearer envision of how positive
eWOM can be handled to effectively draw potential job seekers to Web-based recruitment
portals.
The article is structured as follows: initially, we analyze previous research in the field of E-recruitment
e-recruitment, accompanied by the formulation of a theoretical framework and hypotheses adoption
development. The research methodology, findings and discussion of the study are
presented. Finally, the article addresses the conceptual and practical implications along with
limitations and possible future research avenues are discussed.
2.3 The mediating role of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and attitude
TAM constructs such as PU, PEOU and attitude play a key role as mediators in the model
to explain the BI of users (King and He, 2006; Porter and Donthu, 2006; Venkatesh and
MRR Davis, 2000). eWOM appears to be more inclined to be considered a reliable source of the
information among job-seekers (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007). Moreover, reliable
information resources are highly convincing in shifting attitudes and attaining behavioral
cooperation (Van Hoye et al., 2016). Although, eWOM communication enhances the
usefulness, ease of use and form attitude (Mehrad and Mohammadi, 2017) among job-
seekers by gaining additional information (Evertz et al., 2019). Thus, it is essential to explore
the mediating role played by TAM constructs in e-recruitment adoption. As there has been a
dearth of literature on e-recruitment adoption, this study is the pioneer attempt to
investigate the role of eWOM on job seekers’ adoption of e-recruitment platforms. The
mediating role of PU, PEOU and attitude on the relationship between eWOM and BI is not
yet examined in any scenario. The following hypotheses are structured:
H11b
Perceived
Usefulness H2
H11a
H7
Atude
Electronic H9
H1
word-of-mouth
H6
H10
H8 H3 Behavioral
H4 Intenons
Perceived H5
ease of use
Control
H11c Variables
• Gender
• Age
Figure 1. • Mode of
Proposed structural e-recruitment
model • Qualificaon
3. Research methodology E-recruitment
3.1 Participants and data collection adoption
The target participants for this study were graduate and postgraduate students who were
using electronic recruitment platforms for searching for jobs, i.e. fresh job-seekers. A
purposive sampling technique was preferred to collect data from various universities in
India. Purposive sampling commences once the researcher recognizes the research question
and the target delivers the relevant information (Raza et al., 2020). An online questionnaire
using Google Docs was prepared. In recent times, an online survey is considered useful and
accurate for collecting data due to lower cost and vast area coverage (Dutot et al., 2019;
Vehovar and Manfreda, 2015). The questionnaires were sent to 740 participants via social
media, LinkedIn and email. Voluntary participation was preferred in this study. Out of 740
questionnaires, 397 responses were received, with a response rate of 53.65%. As the survey
was conducted online, missing value issue was not there in the data. Data was collected over
the period from October 2020 to January 2021. Table 1 represents the sample profile of
respondents. In total, 53.1% (211) were male, and 46.9% (186) were female respondents. The
majority of respondents fall in the age group of 21–35 years (49.9%); hence, the young were
pronto use the internet for job searching. Moreover, the majority of respondents’
qualifications were 189 graduates (47.6%) and 173 postgraduates (43.6%). Although, more
than 41% (163) of the job-seekers preferred LinkedIn as a mode of e-recruitment for
searching for jobs. Other, 29.2% (116) used third-party job portals like Naukri.com, monster.
com, etc., 96 (24.2%) job-seekers choose the company’s website, whereas only 5.5% (22)
selected other social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, etc.
Frequency
Characteristic (n = 397) (%)
Gender
Male 211 53.1
Female 186 46.9
Age
Less than 20 103 25.9
21–35 years 198 49.9
Above 35 96 24.2
Qualification
Graduate 189 47.6
Postgraduate 173 43.6
PhD 35 8.8
Mode of e-recruitment
Job portals 116 29.2
Company’s website 96 24.2
LinkedIn 163 41.1
Table 1.
Other social media sites 22 5.5 Demographic
characteristics of job-
Source: The authors seekers
MRR demographic information, and the second section represented the statements covering the
job-seekers’ attitudes and BI. The survey relied on a questionnaire constructed from the
statements verified in previous studies. PU was measured using six items by Davis (1989)
and Lin (2010), and PEOU (six items) was based on Davis et al. (1989) and Tong (2009). The
attitude was tested by using four items from Lin (2010). Respondents were asked regarding
their BI to adopt e-recruitment with four items extracted from Lin (2010) and Brahmana and
Brahmana (2013). The four-item scale was used to measure eWOM, adopted and adapted
from Schumann et al. (2010) in the context of e-recruitment.
4. Results
4.1 Selection of statistical analysis
Partial least square structural equational modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to analyze the
conceptual model. PLS-SEM was deemed to be more feasible than covariance-based (CB)
SEM; first, the nature of this study is the prediction of job-seekers’ BI to adopt e-recruitment,
and also there is the absence of normality in the distribution of the sample (Hair et al., 2013;
Sanchez-Prieto et al., 2017). Second, the most recent recommendations for using PLS-SEM
have demonstrated its advantage in evaluating mediation analysis over PROCESS (Hair
et al., 2019; Raza et al., 2020; Sarstedt et al., 2020). Hence, PLS-SEM should be appropriate for
this study as three mediators are evaluated. Finally, in comparison to CB-SEM, PLS-SEM
offers a higher level of statistical power (Hair et al., 2019). The existing study used
SmartPLS version 3.3.3. The two-stage analysis approach proposed by Anderson and E-recruitment
Gerbing (1988) was adopted for the assessment of the model. Initially, the reliability and adoption
validity of the measurement model were carried out using the PLS algorithm, and in the
subsequent stage, hypotheses and control variables were tested using the bootstrapping
methodology.
The values of all measures should be above 0.7 and below 0.95 (Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2017).
As provided in Table 2, all constructs are reliable as they have satisfied the threshold limits.
The convergent validity is assessed based on three conditions:
(1) The outer/factor loadings for all items must be above 0.5 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) or
0.7 (Hair et al., 2013) (ranged from 0.668 to 0.875).
(2) Average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct should be higher than 0.5
(Hair et al., 2019) (ranged from 0.546 to 0.707).
(3) Composite reliability of all the constructs must be greater than 0.7 (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2019) (ranged from 0.878 to 0.906); see Table 2.
Discriminant validity checks whether all constructs specifically differentiate from each
other (Wu et al., 2016). In PLS-SEM, for establishing discriminant validity, Henseler et al.
(2015) recommended the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio criterion instead of Fornell–
Larcker criterion and cross-loadings as these criteria are ineffective at detecting
discriminant validity issues. The threshold value for the HTMT ratio in a more conservative
manner should be lower than 0.85, but it may also acceptable if it is below 0.90 (Hair et al.,
2019; Henseler et al., 2015). All constructs are satisfied with the HTMT criterion for
discriminant validity (Table 3).
AT Using e-recruitment platform is a good idea 0.834 0.891 0.893 0.920 0.698
I like the idea of using e-recruitment platform 0.836
for finding an appropriate job
Using e-recruitment platform would be a 0.779
pleasant experience
I think using an e-recruitment platform for job 0.849
search is beneficial to me
In my opinion, it is desirable to use e- 0.875
recruitment platform for job searches
BI I intend to use an e-recruitment platform to 0.835 0.854 0.855 0.901 0.696
find a job
I intend to get myself registered to become a 0.837
member of the e-recruitment platform
In the near future, I will send/upload a resume 0.819
to the e-recruitment platform
In the near future, I would consider using the 0.845
e-recruitment platform for job search
PEOU Learning to operate an e-recruitment platform 0.668 0.833 0.836 0.878 0.546
is easy for me
I find e-recruitment platforms to be flexible to 0.749
interact with
I find it easy to fill my job application on an e- 0.794
recruitment platform
My interaction with an e-recruitment platform 0.749
is clear and understandable
I find e-recruitment platform contents are user- 0.771
friendly and easy to use
It would be easy for me to become skillful at 0.697
using an e-recruitment platform
PU Using e-recruitment platform enables me to 0.688 0.854 0.862 0.892 0.579
look for jobs quickly
Using e-recruitment platform improved my 0.729
job searches
Using e-recruitment platform helps me to get 0.795
current career information
Using e-recruitment platform increases my 0.775
chances of finding an appropriate job
Using an e-recruitment platform would 0.756
enhance my effectiveness in applying for jobs
Overall, using an e-recruitment platform is a 0.814
useful way to look for a job
eWOM I regularly read online reviews to determine 0.859 0.862 0.864 0.906 0.707
which e-recruitment site makes a good
impression on job-seekers
I refer to online reviews to choose an attractive 0.868
e-recruitment platform
I collect information using online reviews 0.828
before choosing an e-recruitment platform
The information obtained from an online site 0.806
is very important to me when choosing an e-
recruitment platform
Notes: AT = attitude; BI – behavioral intentions; PEOU – perceived ease of use; PU – perceived usefulness;
Table 2. eWOM – electronic word-of-mouth; a – Cronbach’s alpha; r A – rho_A; CR – composite reliability; AVE –
Measurement model average variance extracted
indicators Source: The authors
4.3.1 Multicollinearity testing. Before examining structural relationships, it is vital to E-recruitment
measure for collinearity to ensure that it does not affect the regression conclusions (Hair adoption
et al., 2019). The existence of correlation among two or more independent variables leads to
the issue of multicollinearity, which may be redundant conclusions. The collinearity testing
was carried out for the inner model. The variance inflation factor (VIF) values should be
below 3 (Hair et al., 2019) or < 3.33 (Kock and Lynn, 2012). In this study, the inner model VIF
values range from 1.00 to 3.227, showing no issue of collinearity.
4.3.2 Coefficient of determination (R2). As collinearity is not an issue in this study, the
next step in structural model testing is examining the exploratory magnitude of the PLS
model and path coefficients’ significance. R2 values are calculated for determining the
explanatory power of the model (Hair et al., 2019). R2 is a measure of explanatory power that
varies from 0 to 1, with higher values reflecting better explanatory power; 0.75 as large, 0.50
as moderate and 0.25 as considered weak (Hair et al., 2019; Vinzi et al., 2010). As shown in
Table 4, the R2 value of BI is 0.673, stating 67.3% of the variation in the BI of the job-seekers
can be explained by the proposed model. Additionally, the model explains that 69% of
the variation in attitude is represented by PEOU, PU and eWOM. PU shows more than 48%
of the variance due to PEOU and eWOM and, nearly 30% of the variation in PEOU is
explained by eWOM.
4.3.3 Hypotheses testing. The path coefficients state the size and significance of
relationships among constructs (Table 5 and Figure 2). The structural model results disclose
positive relationship between PU and BI ( b = 0.247, t = 2.105, p = 0.035). Moreover, PU is
a strong predictor of the attitude of job-seekers toward e-recruitment ( b = 0.559, t = 7.319,
p = 0.001). As H3, PEOU is a major antecedent of PU ( b = 0.503, t = 7.319, p = 0.001). Hence,
H1, H2 and H3 of this conceptual model are supported. H4 and H5 stating the relationship
between PEOU-AT and PEOU-BI to use e-recruitment are not supported.
AT BI PEOU PU WOM
Attitude (AT) –
BI 0.888 –
PEOU 0.721 0.699 –
PU 0.881 0.832 0.766 –
Table 3.
eWOM 0.744 0.697 0.637 0.633 – HTMT ratio
(discriminant
Source: The authors validity)
Notes: AT – attitude; BI – behavioral intentions; PU – perceived usefulness; PEOU – perceived ease of use Table 4.
Source: The authors R2 and Q2 results
MRR Hypothesis Path relationship Path coefficient ( b ) t-statistics p-values Results
Figure 2.
Path coefficients of
the structural model
Further, attitude has a direct significant alliance with BI ( b = 0.453, t = 4.273, p = 0.001)
revealing that attitude has a major impact on BI of job-seekers compared to PU, PEOU and
eWOM for using electronic recruitment platforms. eWOM directly influences PU ( b = 0.277,
t = 3.896, p = 0.001), PEOU ( b = 0.545, t = 7.225, p = 0.001) and attitude ( b = 0.287, t =
4.361, p = 0.001). Thus, H7, H8 and H9 are supported. Whereas, there is no direct significant
relationship is found in eWOM and BI. Finally, the proposed model incorporated gender,
age, mode of e-recruitment and qualification as control factors. The results indicated that
only gender has a significant influence on BI ( b = 0.138, t = 3.390, p = 0.001) out of all other
control variable. Hence, showing that male applicants had stronger intentions to adopt
e-recruitment compared to female job-seekers.
4.3.4 Effect size (f2). The f 2 value assesses the effect size of each exogenous construct on E-recruitment
predicting endogenous construct in terms of R2. Small, medium and high f 2 impact sizes are adoption
represented by values greater than 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35, respectively (Cohen, 1988). The
analysis depicts that attitude has a medium effect on predicting BI (f 2 = 0.206), whereas, PU
and eWOM have a small effect with f 2 values of 0.06 and 0.025. Moreover, while estimating
the attitude of job-seekers, PU has a large effect (f 2 = 0.522), and WOM has a medium effect
(f 2 = 0.169). PEOU and eWOM have a large and small effect on PU with values of f 2 = 0.353
and f 2 = 0.104, respectively. eWOM (f 2 = 0.423) has a large effect on predicting the PEOU of
job-seekers toward online recruitment.
4.3.5 Prediction accuracy (Q2). The Q2 value is used to determine the predictive accuracy
of the PLS path model (Geisser, 1974). The blindfolding process is used to determine the Q2
values for the endogenous variable, where values greater than 0, 0.25 and 0.50 represent
small, medium and large predictive power, respectively (Hair et al., 2019). As shown in
Table 4, the values obtained from construct cross-validated redundancy for attitude and BI
to use have a large predicting power in this PLS model, medium for PU and small for PEOU.
References
Agarwal, R. (2000), “Individual acceptance of information technologies”, in Zmud, R.W. (ed.), Framing
the Domains of IT Management Projecting the Future through the past, Pinnaflex Education
Resources, Incorporated, pp. 85-104.
Ahamad, F. (2019), “Impact of word-of-mouth, job attributes and relationship strength on employer
attractiveness”, Management Research Review, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 721-739.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision E-recruitment
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
adoption
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour, Pearson,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ali, L. and Ali, F. (2022), “Perceived risks related to unconventional restaurants: a perspective from
edible insects and live seafood restaurants”, Food Control, Vol. 131 No. 4, pp. 1-9.
Anderson, N. (2003), “Applicant and recruiter reactions to new technology in selection: a critical review
and agenda for future research”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 11
Nos 2/3, pp. 121-136.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended Two-Step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Baber, A., Thurasamy, R., Malik, M.I., Sadiq, B., Islam, S. and Sajjad, M. (2016), “Online word-of-mouth
antecedents, attitude and intention-to-purchase electronic products in Pakistan”, Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 388-400.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bala, H. and Venkatesh, V. (2008), “Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 273-315.
Basri, W.S. and Siam, R.A.M. (2018), “E-recruitment adoption strategy in the universities of Saudi
Arabia”, European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 33, pp. 32-43.
Becker, T.E. (2005), “Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research:
a qualitative analysis with recommendations”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 274-289.
Berki-Kiss, D. and Menrad, K. (2022), “The role emotions play in consumer intentions to make pro-
social purchases in Germany – an augmented theory of planned behavior model”, Sustainable
Production and Consumption, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 79-89.
Brahmana, R.K. and Brahmana, R. (2013), “What factors drive job seekers attitude in using
E-recruitment?”, The South East Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 39-50.
Brandão, C., Silva, R. and Santos, J.V. (2019), “Online recruitment in Portugal: theories and candidate
profiles”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 94 No. 4, pp. 273-279.
Cain, M.K., Zhang, Z. and Yuan, K.H. (2017), “Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for
measuring nonnormality: prevalence, influence and estimation”, Behavior Research Methods,
Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 1716-1735.
Chatterjee, P. (2001), “Online reviews: do consumers use them?”, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 129-133.
Chauhan, V., Yadav, R. and Choudhary, V. (2019), “Analyzing the impact of consumer innovativeness
and perceived risk in internet banking adoption: a study of Indian consumers”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 323-339.
Chen, S.C. and Hung, C.W. (2016), “Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of green products:
an extension of theory of planned behavior”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 112 No. 11, pp. 155-163.
Cheung, C.M.K. and Thadani, D.R. (2012), “The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: a
literature analysis and integrative model”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 461-470.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, In Handbook of Partial Least Squares,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp. 655-690.
Choi, G. and Chung, H. (2013), “Applying the technology acceptance model to social networking sites
(SNS): impact of subjective norm and social capital on the acceptance of SNS”, International
Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 619-628.
MRR Chong, A.Y.L., Chan, F.T.S. and Ooi, K.B. (2012), “Predicting consumer decisions to adopt mobile
commerce: cross country empirical examination between China and Malaysia”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 34-43.
Chung, K.H. and Shin, J.I. (2010), “The antecedents and consequents of relationship quality in internet
shopping”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 473-491.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Davis, F.D. (1985), “A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information
systems: theory and results”, Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
Davis, F.D. (1993), “User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions
and behavioral impacts”, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 475-487.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1992), “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 14, pp. 1111-1132.
Dutot, V., Bhatiasevi, V. and Bellallahom, N. (2019), “Applying the technology acceptance model in a
three-countries study of smartwatch adoption”, The Journal of High Technology Management
Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Evertz, L., Kollitz, R. and Sü b , S. (2019), “Electronic word-of-mouth via employer review sites – the
effects on organizational attraction”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 32 No. 16, pp. 1-30.
Faliagka, E., Iliadis, L., Karydis, I., Rigou, M., Sioutas, S., Tsakalidis, A. and Tzimas, G. (2014), “On-line
consistent ranking on e-recruitment: seeking the truth behind a well-formed CV”, Artificial
Intelligence Review, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 515-528.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. and Lang, A.G. (2009), “Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: tests
for correlation and regression analyses”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 1149-1160.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
García-Izquierdo, A.L., Aguinis, H. and Ramos-Villagrasa, P.J. (2010), “Science-practice gap in
e-recruitment”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 432-438.
Gavino, M.C., Williams, D.E., Jacobson, D. and Smith, I. (2019), “Latino entrepreneurs and social media
adoption: personal and business social network platforms”, Management Research Review,
Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 469-494.
Geisser, S. (1974), “A predictive approach to the random effect model”, Biometrika, Vol. 61 No. 1,
pp. 101-107.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling:
rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46
Nos 1/2, pp. 1-12.
Hair, J.F.J., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Thiele, K.O. (2017), “Mirror, mirror on the wall: a
comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 616-632.
Harman, H.H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. E-recruitment
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via adoption
consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the
internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
updated guidelines”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 2-20.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T.K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D.W., Ketchen, D.J., Jr,
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M. and Calantone, R.J. (2014), “Common beliefs and reality about PLS: comments
on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013)”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 182-209.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Ibrahim, O., Ithnin, N. and Muslim, N. (2006), “The acceptance behavior of online recruitment users in
Malaysia”, PACIS 2006 – 10th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems: ICT and
Innovation Economy, AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 685-696.
Jalilvand, M.R. and Samiei, N. (2012a), “The effect of electronic word of mouth on brand image and
purchase intention: an empirical study in the automobile industry in Iran”, Marketing
Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 460-476.
Jalilvand, M.R. and Samiei, N. (2012b), “The impact of electronic word of mouth on a tourism
destination choice: testing the theory of planned behavior (TPB)”, Internet Research, Vol. 22
No. 5, pp. 591-612.
Joo, J. (2014), “Exploring Korean collegians’ social commerce usage: extending technology acceptance
model with word-of-mouth and perceived enjoyment”, Journal of Digital Convergence, Vol. 12
No. 8, pp. 147-155.
Kashi, K. and Zheng, C. (2013), “Extending technology acceptance model to the E-recruitment context in
Iran”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 121-129.
King, W.R. and He, J. (2006), “A Meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model”, Information and
Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 740-755.
Kock, N. and Lynn, G.S. (2012), “Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an
illustration and recommendations”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13
No. 7, pp. 546-580.
Kumar, M.A. and Priyanka, S. (2014), “A study on adoption of E-recruitment using technology
acceptance model (TAM) with reference to graduating students in universities in Bahrain”,
International Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science and Management Studies, Vol. 2
No. 9, pp. 377-383.
Lee, D.Y. and Lehto, M.R. (2013), “User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: an extension of
the technology acceptance model”, Computers and Education, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 193-208.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K.A. and Larsen, K.R.T. (2003), “The technology acceptance model: past, present,
and future”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 752-780.
Legris, P., Ingham, J. and Collerette, P. (2003), “Why do people use information technology? A critical
review of the technology acceptance model”, Information and Management, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 191-204.
Li, R., Chung, T.L.(D.). and Fiore, A.M. (2017), “Factors affecting current users’ attitude towards e-
auctions in China: an extended TAM study”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 34
No. September, pp. 19-29.
MRR Li, Y., Qi, J. and Shu, H. (2008), “Review of relationships among variables in TAM”, Tsinghua Science
and Technology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 273-278.
Lievens, F. and Slaughter, J.E. (2016), “Employer image and employer branding: what we know and
what we need to know”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 407-440.
Lin, H.F. (2010), “Applicability of the extended theory of planned behavior in predicting job seeker
intentions to use job-search websites”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 64-74.
Mahmood, N.A. and Ling, N.F. (2017), “Theoretical framework for factors influencing job-seekers’
intention to use online recruitment websites”, International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 11, pp. 479-487.
Marangunic, N. and Granic, A. (2015), “Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to
2013”, Universal Access Information Society, Vol. 14, pp. 81-95.
Mardia, K.V. (1974), “Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in testing
normality and robustness studies”, Sankhya: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 115-128.
Maurer, S.D. and Liu, Y. (2007), “Developing effective e-recruiting websites: insights for managers from
marketers”, Business Horizons, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 305-314.
Mehrad, D. and Mohammadi, S. (2017), “Word of mouth impact on the adoption of mobile banking in
Iran”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1351-1363.
Memon, M.A., Mirza, M.Z., Lim, B., Umrani, W.A., Hassan, M.A., Cham, T.H. and Shahzad, K. (2019),
“When in Rome, do as the romans do: factors influencing international students’ intention to
consume local food in Malaysia”, British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 6, pp. 1953-1967.
Monavarian, A., Kashi, K. and Ramin-Mehr, H. (2010), “Applying technology acceptance model to E-
recruitment context”, E Commerce Conference, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 168-186.
Moon, J.W. and Kim, Y.G. (2001), “Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context”, Information and
Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 217-230.
Nitzl, C., Roldan, J.L. and Cepeda, G. (2016), “Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modelling,
helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models”, Industrial Management and Data
Systems, Vol. 116 No. 9, pp. 1849-1864.
Ouirdi, M.E., Ouirdi, A.E., Segers, J. and Pais, I. (2016), “Technology adoption in employee recruitment:
the case of social media in Central and Eastern Europe”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 57
No. 5, pp. 240-249.
Park, D.-H. and Kim, S. (2008), “The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of electronic
word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 399-410.
Park, B., Chang, H. and Park, S. (2019), “Adoption of digital devices for children education: Korean
case”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 247-256.
Parry, M.E., Kawakami, T. and Kishiya, K. (2012), “The effect of personal and virtual word-of-mouth on
technology acceptance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 952-966.
Parry, E. and Wilson, H. (2009), “Factors influencing the adoption of online recruitment”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 655-673.
Petre, A., Osoian, C. and Zaharie, M. (2016), “Applicants’ perceptions on online recruitment”, in
Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society, Babes Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 63-68.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Porter, C.E. and Donthu, N. (2006), “Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes E-recruitment
determine internet usage: the role of perceived access barriers and demographics”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 999-1007.
adoption
Priyadarshini, C., Sreejesh, S. and Anusree, M.R. (2017), “Effect of information quality of employment
website on attitude toward the website: a moderated mediation study”, International Journal of
Manpower, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 729-745.
Raza, A., Rather, R.A., Iqbal, M.K. and Bhutta, U.S. (2020), “An assessment of corporate social
responsibility on customer company identification and loyalty in banking industry: a PLS-SEM
analysis”, Management Research Review, Vol. 43 No. 11, pp. 1337-1370.
Reio, T.G. (2010), “The threat of common method variance bias to theory building”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 405-411.
Rosoiu, O. and Popescu, C. (2016), “E-recruiting platforms: features that influence the efficiency of
online recruitment systems”, Informatica Economica, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 46-55.
Sanchez-Prieto, J.C., Olmos-Miguelañez, S. and García-Peñalvo, F.J. (2017), “MLearning and pre-service
teachers: an assessment of the behavioral intention using an expanded TAM model”, Computers
in Human Behavior, Vol. 72 No. 7, pp. 644-654.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Jr, Nitzl, C., Ringle, C.M. and Howard, M.C. (2020), “Beyond a tandem analysis of
SEM and PROCESS: use of PLS-SEM for mediation analyses!”, International Journal of Market
Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 1-12.
Schumann, J.H., Wangenheim, F.V., Stringfellow, A., Yang, Z., Blazevic, V., Praxmarer, S., Shainesh, G.,
Komor, M., Shannon, R.M. and Jiménez, F.R. (2010), “Cross-cultural differences in the effect of
received word-of-mouth referral in relational service exchange”, Journal of International
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 62-80.
Singh, L.B. and Srivastava, S. (2021), “Linking workplace ostracism to turnover intention: a moderated
mediation approach”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 46 No. 2,
pp. 244-256.
Sun, T., Ayoun, B. and Calhoun, J. (2013), “The effect of organizational commitment on word-of-mouth
intentions in recruitment in China”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 192-216.
Sylva, H. and Mol, S.T. (2009), “E-recruitment: a study into applicant perceptions of an online
application system”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 311-323.
Teo, T.S.H. (2001), “Demographic and motivation variables associated with internet usage activities”,
Internet Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 125-137.
Tong, D.Y.K. (2009), “A study of e-recruitment technology adoption in Malaysia”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 281-300.
Van Hoye, G. (2013), “Word of mouth as a recruitment source: an integrative model”, in Yu, K.Y.T. and
Cable, D.M. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Recruitment, Oxford University Press, New York,
NY, pp. 251-268.
Van Hoye, G. and Lievens, F. (2007), “Investigating web-based recruitment sources: employee
testimonials vs word-of-mouse”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 372-382.
Van Hoye, G. and Lievens, F. (2009), “Tapping the grapevine: a closer look at word-of-mouth as a
recruitment source”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 341-352.
Van Hoye, G., Weijters, B., Lievens, F. and Stockman, S. (2016), “Social influences in recruitment: when
is word-of-mouth most effective?”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 42-53.
Vehovar, V. and Manfreda, K.L. (2015), “Overview: online surveys”, in Fielding, N.G., Lee, R.M. and
Blank, G. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods, Second, Sage, London,
pp. 177-194.
MRR Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (2010), “Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts”,
Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin.
Wu, L.H., Wu, L.C. and Chang, S.C. (2016), “Exploring consumers’ intention to accept smartwatch”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 64, pp. 383-392.
Zeba, F. and Ganguli, S. (2016), “Word-of-mouth, trust, and perceived risk in online shopping: an
extension of the technology acceptance model”, International Journal of Information Systems in
the Service Sector, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 17-32.
Zhang, H., Jabutay, F. and Gao, Q. (2018), “E-recruitment adoption among Chinese job-seekers”, Kasem
Bundit Journal, Vol. 19 No. June, pp. 261-272.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G. and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about
mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197-206.
Further reading
Parikh, A., Patel, J.D. and Jaiswal, A.K. (2021), “Managing job applications online: integrating website
informativeness and compatibility in theory of planned behaviour and technology acceptance
model”, DECISION, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 97-113.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com