{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03162393162393162, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019658119658119658, 'mean_word_length': 5.469613259668508, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Effects of Job Attributes, Institutional Mission Emphasis, and Institution Type on Perceptions of the Provost Position

Randomly selected deans (N = 456) employed at public institutions rated one of four provost position announcements varied by two variables: job attributes and institutional mission. Independent variables were job attributes, institutional mission, and institution type; dependent variable was a rating of three items with Likert-type scales: likelihood of applying for provost job described, likelihood of accepting an interview for provost job described, and likelihood of accepting provost job described if offered. A 2 X 2 X 3 ANOVA (12 cells; n = 38) detected a main effect for institutional mission (F = 3.95; df = 1,444; p < .05). Deans rated jobs emphasizing a research mission more favorably than those emphasizing a teaching mission. No other significant effects or interactions were found. Results support use of Rynes and Barber's (1990) Applicant Attraction Model to frame investigations concerning recruitment practice in higher education, specifically strategic selection of recruitment message content for vacant provost positions.