Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-jqctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-23T22:40:34.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessing the Impact of Dispositional Resistance to Change on Organizational Attraction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Luis M. Arciniega*
Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (Mexico)
Adriana Maldonado
University of Sheffield (UK)
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Luis M. Arciniega. ITAM Business School. Río Hondo 1. San Ángel. México 01080 D.F. (Mexico). Phone: +52-55-56284000. Fax: +52-55-56284049. E-mail:


In recent years there has been an increasing interest among researchers and practitioners to analyze what makes a firm attractive in the eyes of university students, and if individual differences such as personality traits have an impact on this general affect towards a particular organization. The main goal of the present research is to demonstrate that a recently conceptualized narrow trait of personality named dispositional resistance to change (RTC), that is, the inherent tendency of individuals to avoid and oppose changes (Oreg, 2003), can predict organizational attraction of university students to firms that are perceived as innovative or conservative. Three complementary studies were carried out using a total sample of 443 college students from Mexico. In addition to validating the hypotheses, our findings suggest that as the formation of the images of organizations in students' minds is done through social cognitions, simple stimuli such as physical artifacts, when used in an isolated manner, do not have a significant impact on organizational attraction.

En los últimos años se ha registrado un creciente interés entre investigadores y profesionales de la psicología de las organizaciones por analizar qué es lo que hace que una firma resulte atractiva para trabajar ante los ojos de estudiantes universitarios, y si las diferencias individuales de éstos, tales como rasgos de personalidad, tienen un impacto sobre este afecto general hacia una organización en particular. El objetivo principal de esta investigación consiste en demostrar que un rasgo específico de personalidad, recientemente conceptualizado como predisposición a la resistencia al cambio (RC): tendencia a evitar y oponerse a los cambios (Oreg, 2003), puede predecir la atracción organizacional experimentada por estudiantes universitarios hacia firmas que son percibidas como innovadoras o conservadoras. En esta investigación se llevaron a cabo tres estudios complementarios, empleándose una muestra total de 443 estudiantes universitarios de México. Además de que nuestras hipótesis fueron validadas, los resultados sugieren que dado que las imágenes sobre las organizaciones son construidas a través de cogniciones sociales, los estímulos simples, tales como artefactos físicos (e.g. fotografías, gráficos), no poseen un impacto significativo sobre la atracción organizacional cuando son usados en forma aislada.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347356. doi:10.2307/3151897Google Scholar
Aaker, J. L., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner and a person: Three perspectives on the question of brand personality. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 391395.Google Scholar
Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T. N., & Cable, D. M. (2001). Are you attracted? Do you intend to pursue?: A recruiting policy capturing study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 219237. doi:10.1023/A:1011157116322Google Scholar
Arciniega, L., & González, L. (2002). Individual values and perceived corporate values: An empirical approach. Revista de Psicología Social Aplicada, 12, 4159.Google Scholar
Arciniega, L. M., & González, L. (2009). Validation of the Spanish-language version of the resistance to change scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 178182. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.024Google Scholar
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 7494. doi:10.1007/BF02723327Google Scholar
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 2950.Google Scholar
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Pay preferences and job search decisions: A person-organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47, 317348. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01727.xGoogle Scholar
Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. (2001). Recruitment image equity: Establishing the dimensions, sources and value of job seekers' organizational beliefs. In Ferris, G. R. (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 20, pp. 115163). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Cable, D. M., & Yu, K. Y. T. (2006). Managing job seekers' organizational image beliefs: The role of media richness and media credibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 828840. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.82Google Scholar
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 928944. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.928Google Scholar
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417440. doi:10.1146/ Scholar
Elsbach, K. D. (2006). Organizational Perception Management, Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial-organizational psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 272290. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00048.xGoogle Scholar
Lievens, F., Decaesteker, C., Coetsier, P., & Geirnaert, J. (2001). Organizational attractiveness for prospective applicants: A person-organisation fit perspective. Applied Psychology, 50, 3051. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00047Google Scholar
Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company's attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology, 56, 75102. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00144.xGoogle Scholar
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680693. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680Google Scholar
Oreg, S., Bayazit, M., Vakola, M., Arciniega, L., Armenakis, A. A., Barkauskiene, R.,… van Dam, K. (2008). Dispositional resistance to change: measurement equivalence and the link to personal values across 17 Nations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 935944. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.935Google Scholar
Oreg, S., Nevo, O., Metzer, H., Leder, N., & Castro, D. (2009). Dispositional resistance to change and occupational interests and choices. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 312323. doi:10.1177/1069072708330599Google Scholar
Ornstein, S. (1986). Organizational symbols: A study of their meanings and influences on perceived psychological climate. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 207229. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90017-8Google Scholar
Ornstein, S. (1992). First impressions of the symbolic meanings connoted by reception area design. Environment and Behavior, 24, 85100. doi:10.1177/0013916592241004Google Scholar
Raykov, T., & Shrout, P. E. (2002). Reliability of scales with general structure: Point and interval estimation using a structural equation modeling approach. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 195212. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_3Google Scholar
Rentsch, J. R., & McEwen, A. H. (2002). Comparing personality characteristics, values, and goals as antecedents of organizational attractiveness. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 225234. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00212Google Scholar
Rothstein, M. G., & Goffin, R. D. (2006). The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support? Human Resource Management Review, 16, 155180. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.004Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis: On the non-development of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11561166. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1156Google Scholar
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437454. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.xGoogle Scholar
Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D.(1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639655. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199611)17:6<639::AID-JOB3828>3.3.CO;2-03.3.CO;2-0>Google Scholar
Slaughter, J. E., & Greguras, G. J. (2009). Organizations: The influence of trait inferences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 118. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00447.xGoogle Scholar
Slaughter, J. E., Zickar, M. J., Highhouse, S., & Mohr, D. C. (2004). Personality trait inferences about organizations: Development of a measure and assessment of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 85103. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.85Google Scholar
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355374. doi:10.2307/1882010Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Turban, D. B., Forret, M. L., & Hendrickson, C. L. (1998). Applicant attraction to firms: influences of organizational reputation, job and organizational attributes and recruiter behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 2444. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.1555Google Scholar
Tziner, A. (1985). How team composition affects task performance: Some theoretical insights. Psychological Reports, 57, 11111119.Google Scholar