THE EFFECT OF ETHICAL SIGNALS ON RECRUITMENT ...

to imagine they were applying to a job and report their reactions. Participants were not
able to actually respond to the interviewer, but only read about the interaction and report
their attraction to a fictitious organization. In addition, they did not actually choose an
organization, but simply reported their level of attraction to it. In other words, there
were no real ramifications for their choices, as there would be if they were actual job
applicants. As mentioned above, intentions (as reported in a laboratory study such as
this) and actual behavior can be two divergent concepts, especially as it is related to
ethical behavior.
Additionally, the organization’s ethical climate can greatly influence the ethical
behavior of the individual. Without more exposure to the organization (i.e., office visit,
second interview, etc.), a laboratory study such as this is only an artificial environment;
thus, generalizability is limited. On a related note, another limitation is the small amount
of information applicants were given about the fictitious organization and about the job
for which they were applying. It is plausible that if additional information were
presented to the participants, the effect of ethical signals would start to diminish. This is
especially true for those variables on which applicants tend to place a tremendous
amount of weight (i.e., salary).
The next limitation is the inconsistency between the conceptualization of ethics
theoretically and empirically. Theoretically, ethics is on a continuum (Nicotera &
Cushman, 1992). This is consistent with the hypothesized relationships (i.e., ethical
organizational practices are positively related to organizational attraction).
Methodologically, however, ethics was manipulated in the lab such that the data (and
84