Job-seeker attraction by payroll cost reduction method and gender (study 2)
| Gender | Job-seeker attraction by payroll cost reduction method | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General attractiveness | Job pursuit intention | |||||||||||
| Downsized organization | Pay cut organization | Downsized organization | Pay cut organization | |||||||||
| M | SE | 95% CI | M | SE | 95% CI | M | SE | 95% CI | M | SE | 95% CI | |
| Male (N = 416, 208 respondents) | 4.351 | 0.97 | 4.162 | 4.380 | 0.097 | 4.191 | 4.400 | 0.092 | 4.218 | 4.376 | 0.092 | 4.194 |
| – | – | – | – | |||||||||
| 4.541 | 4.570 | 4.581 | 4.557 | |||||||||
| Female (N = 352, 176 respondents) | 4.161 | 0.105 | 3.954 | 4.607 | 0.105 | 4.401 | 4.185 | 0.101 | 3.987 | 4.552 | 0.101 | 4.355 |
| – | – | – | – | |||||||||
| 4.367 | 4.814 | 4.382 | 4.750 | |||||||||
| Gender | Job-seeker attraction by payroll cost reduction method | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General attractiveness | Job pursuit intention | |||||||||||
| Downsized | Pay cut | Downsized | Pay cut | |||||||||
| M | SE | 95% CI | M | SE | 95% CI | M | SE | 95% CI | M | SE | 95% CI | |
| Male | 4.351 | 0.97 | 4.162 | 4.380 | 0.097 | 4.191 | 4.400 | 0.092 | 4.218 | 4.376 | 0.092 | 4.194 |
| – | – | – | – | |||||||||
| 4.541 | 4.570 | 4.581 | 4.557 | |||||||||
| Female | 4.161 | 0.105 | 3.954 | 4.607 | 0.105 | 4.401 | 4.185 | 0.101 | 3.987 | 4.552 | 0.101 | 4.355 |
| – | – | – | – | |||||||||
| 4.367 | 4.814 | 4.382 | 4.750 | |||||||||
Source(s): Table by authors