The Impacts of Internal/External CSR on Job Applicants and the Moderating Role of Exchange Ideology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although prior research has shown the positive effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on job applicants’ seeking intentions with an organization, it has not thoroughly examined whether these effects vary with different types of CSR practices or how individual applicants respond differently. This study aims to advance this stream of research by dividing CSR practices into two categories—internal and external CSR—and examining their distinct influences on applicants’ job-seeking intentions. Drawing on signaling theory and moral principle theory, we propose that internal CSR influences applicants’ job-seeking intentions by influencing their perceived justice within an organization, while the effect of external CSR operates through job applicants’ perceived empathy of an organization. Moreover, we introduce job applicants’ exchange ideology as a moderator that can further differentiate the effects of internal and external CSR. The findings from two experimental studies largely supported our hypotheses. In particular, we found that internal and external CSR practices influenced job applicants’ job-seeking intentions via perceived justice and empathy, respectively. Moreover, our results showed that an applicant’s exchange ideology strengthened the effect of external CSR on job-seeking intentions through empathy, but did not moderate the effect of internal CSR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".