Where Does Fitting in Matter? Examining New Students' Perceived Fit With Their University, Instructors, and Classmates.

Abstract

Researchers routinely find that individuals and organizations are better off when the personal characteristics of members fit with contextual organizational characteristics. Typically, this kind of research examines employees and the work environment. However, the dynamics of fit can be applied broadly, and some researchers have found fit-related theory to be a useful tool for examining students’ relationships with their universities. We build on this body of work by using new students’ perceptions of needs-based and values-based fit with their university, instructors, and classmates to predict both intention to recommend and turnover intention. For the purposes of recruitment and retention, results emphasize the importance of needs-based fit with
the university and with classmates.

Full text

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 1
Where and How Does Fitting in Matter? Examining New Students’ Perceived Fit with
Their University, Instructors, and Classmates.
Accepted for publication at the Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, &
Practice. DOI: 10.1177/1521025117725502
Joshua R. Knapp*
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, College of Business and Economics
809 W. Starin Road, Whitewater, Wisconsin, 53190-1790
Email: knappjr@uww.edu Tel: (262) 472-3964
Suzanne S. Masterson
University of Cincinnati, Carl H. Lindner College of Business
2925 Campus Green Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0165
Email: suzanne.masterson@uc.edu Tel: (513) 556-7125
Uma Kedharnath
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, College of Business and Economics
809 W. Starin Road, Whitewater, Wisconsin, 53190-1790
Email: kedharnu@uww.edu Tel: (262) 472-5478
*Corresponding author.
Key Words: Student Attitudes, Needs-Supplies Fit, Values Fit, Multi-foci, Intention to
Recommend, Turnover Intentions.

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 2
Where and How Does Fitting in Matter? Examining New Students’ Perceived Fit with
Their University, Instructors, and Classmates.
ABSTRACT
Researchers routinely find that individuals and organizations are better off when the personal
characteristics of members fit with contextual organizational characteristics. Typically, this kind
of research examines employees and the work environment. However, the dynamics of fit can be
applied broadly, and some researchers have found fit-related theory to be a useful tool for
examining students’ relationships with their universities. We build on this body of work by using
new students’ perceptions of needs-based and values-based fit with their university, instructors,
and classmates to predict both intention to recommend and turnover intention. For the purposes
of recruitment and retention, results emphasize the importance of needs-based fit with the
university and with classmates.
Keywords: Student Attitudes, Needs-Supplies Fit, Values Fit, Multi-foci, Intention to
Recommend, Turnover Intention.

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 3
Obtaining a university degree represents an important step in students’ career
development. Including opportunity costs, workers with a Bachelor’s degree earn a 12% return
on their investment in education (Abel & Deitz, 2014) amounting to about $2.8 million in
additional lifetime earnings (Carnevale, Rose, & Cheah, 2011). Further, university graduates are
almost half as likely to be unemployed when compared to those with only a high school degree
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). Working towards the goal of completing a degree, students’
first year is especially critical. Less than 64% of full time students complete their degree at their
initial institution (National Student Clearinghouse, 2015) with more than 25% dropping out in
their first year (National Student Clearinghouse, 2016). Also, those who decide to leave one
university are unlikely to finish their education elsewhere (National Student Clearinghouse,
2015) and are often left with large amounts of education-related debt (Executive Office of the
President of the United States, 2016). While such statistics demonstrate the importance of
degree completion for individuals, they also highlight a critical concern for universities: student
retention. With enrollment numbers either holding steady or declining (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2016) and the substantial loss of students through dropping out, universities
face financial burdens that adversely affect their functioning (Korn & Kuriloff, 2015).
Given this evidence demonstrating that first year students often drop out and that an
unfinished degree can be harmful to both universities and students, it is important to develop a
better understanding of the social-psychological dynamics related to university students’ first
year experiences, and we do so using a person-environment fit (PE Fit) perspective (Kristof,
1996; Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006). To some extent, past research has
already found a PE Fit lens to be useful tool for examining the intersection between students and
their educational institutions. For example, researchers have found a link between various kinds

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 4
of fit and outcomes such as academic performance, helping behaviors, intent to change major,
academic satisfaction, and well-being (Chen & Yao, 2015; Etzel & Nagy, 2016; Li, Yao, Chen,
& Wang, 2012; Porter & Umbach, 2006). We build upon these previous findings in three
important ways.
First, we integrate multiple foci and forms of fit to develop a more holistic theoretical
understanding of PE Fit in the education context. Specifically, we develop and test hypotheses
that distinguish between freshmen university students’ perceptions of fit with their university,
their instructors, and their classmates from both a needs-based and a values-based perspective.
This contribution verifies the discriminant validity of multiple forms of fit in terms of multiple
foci among a unique population. Second, we link these fit perceptions to students’ intention to
recommend their university to others and their intentions to remain at their university, thereby
demonstrating incremental predictive validity of multiple fit perceptions and providing insight
into the difficulties associated with recruitment and retention. Third, we contribute to the body of
research utilizing Tinto’s (1988; 1997) model of student retention by examining perceived fit
during the early stages of students’ academic careers when they are first separating from family
and previous friendship groups while transitioning into university. Overall, our research expands
our understanding of the fit foci that students consider (i.e., university, instructor, and
classmates), the form of fit with those different foci (i.e., values and needs), and the relationships
between fit assessments and behavioral intentions.
Foci and Forms of Person-Environment Fit
Individuals search for and create environments that best allow for the expression of
personal characteristics (Su, Murdock, & Rounds, 2015). As such, PE Fit is a global concept
with many different operationalizations, and personal characteristics can fit (or not fit) with a

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 5
particular context on a wide variety of dimensions. For example, researchers have examined the
degree of congruence existing between employees and their work rewards, job demands,
organizational values, supervisors, and work groups (Edwards et al., 2006). The overarching
conclusion of this research has been that greater degrees of PE Fit lead to a wide variety of
beneficial outcomes, including improved recruitment and selection, job satisfaction, job
performance, commitment, retention, and personal well-being (e.g., Edwards et al., 2006;
Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson 2005). While the application of the fit concept has been
broad and robust, it is important to note that each application of person-environment theory
carefully specifies both the foci and form of fit being studied.
Foci of Fit
The PE Fit concept can be operationalized using a wide assortment of different foci
existing at varying levels of analysis (Adkins & Caldwell, 2004). For example, researchers
utilize the concept of Person-Organization Fit (PO Fit) to examine the congruence between
individuals and the organization they belong to (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, 2000). Greater
degrees of fit are considered to be a positive influence on organizational members, and
researchers have often utilized the Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) theoretical framework
(Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995; Yang & Yu, 2015) in developing predictions regarding
outcomes associated with PO Fit. This framework predicts that individuals are attracted to and
selected into organizations with which they perceive greater fit, and leave those organizations
with which they do not perceived strong PO Fit. These predictions have been supported, by
research documenting how PO Fit predicts important attitudes and behaviors, including job
satisfaction (Gabriel, Diefendorff, Chandler, Pradco, Greguras 2014; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005),

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 6
organizational commitment (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), and
performance and turnover (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006).
Since organization-level perceptions can be abstract (Pieasentin & Chapman, 2006),
researchers also operationalize PE Fit in more specific manners than PO Fit. For example,
researchers have examined employees’ perceptions of fit with their supervisor (i.e., Person-
Supervisor Fit or PS Fit), finding links to increased commitment and high quality relationships
(e.g., Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; van Vianen, Shen, & Chuang, 2011) along with increased
citizenship behavior (Kim & Kim, 2013). Also, the concept of Person-Group Fit (PG Fit)
reflects the degree of compatibility existing between individuals and their work groups, and it is
commonly used to examine how team composition affects individuals’ motivation and ability to
join, remain, and perform (e.g., Ferris, Youngblood & Yates, 1985; Shin & Choi, 2010; Vogel &
Feldman, 2009; Werbel & Johnson, 2001).
Forms of Fit
PE Fit is also operationalized in a wide variety of forms (Kristof, 1996), including needs-
based and values-based fit. The needs-based form of fit reflects the extent to which the
psychological needs of individuals are being fulfilled by their current contexts, organizations,
tasks, or interpersonal relationships (Edwards et al., 2006; Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al.,
2005). As such, specific needs can vary widely depending upon individual preference; still,
researchers have found needs-supplies fit, when assessed in a general and overarching manner
(e.g, Cable & Deue, 2002; Etzel & Nagy, 2016), to have a consistent positive relationship with
beneficial outcomes such as performance and a negative relationship with undesirable outcomes
such as turnover intentions (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 7
Values-based fit reflects the degree to which an individuals’ ideals and morals are
congruent with another party (Edwards et al., 2006; Kristof, 1996). These other parties can be
individuals (e.g., Hoffman, Bynum, Piccolo, & Sutton, 2011), groups (e.g., Meeussen, Delvaux,
& Phalet, 2014), or organizations (e.g., Yang & Yu, 2014). Value congruence provides a
foundation on which mutual attraction, trust, efficient communication, and predictable
interaction facilitate mutually beneficial relationships (Edwards & Cable 2009) characterized by
identification, citizenship behavior, satisfaction, and retention (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Edwards
& Cable, 2009; Edwards et al., 2006; Kristof, 1996)
Foci and Forms of University-Student Fit
While most of the research related to the concept of PE Fit has been done in the context
of employees at work, the resulting theory is versatile and there is a growing body of fit research
designed to increase our understanding of students within the university environment. Most
commonly, this student-centered research examines one kind of fit with a singular form (e.g.,
needs- or values-based) and an organizational-level focus. For example, Roberts and Robins
(2004) found that college students’ perceptions of value congruence with their university
predicted personality development. Other research has used students’ fit perceptions to predict
performance and satisfaction (Westerman & Vanka, 2005), enrollment (Wintre et al., 2008),
organizational commitment (Lawrence & Lawrence, 2009), and psychological well-being
(Gilbreath, Kim, & Nichols, 2011). More recently, researchers have started to take interest in a
wider variety of foci and forms of fit relevant to the university student experience. For example,
Etzel and Nagy (2016) maintained a primarily university-level focus, yet they did so while
accounting for multiple forms of fit. Sortheix and Lönnqvist (2015) examined the dynamics of
values-based congruence between students and their classmates. Additionally, Chen and Yao

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 8
(2015) studied multiple foci and forms of fit when they used person-major fit and person-group
fit to predict student satisfaction, citizenship and academic performance.
In reviewing the research conducted to date, we note two potential areas where additional
research can extend our understanding of student perceptions of fit. First, previous studies have
tended to focus on students who are more experienced. Thus, our understanding of perceived fit
among new students who have recently separated from their families and established social
groups and are transitioning into university (Tinto, 1988; 1998) is limited. Considering the extent
to which fit has been found to be a significant predictor of turnover (e.g., Hoffman & Woehr,
2006; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) and considering that many students stop attending after their
first year (National Student Clearinghouse, 2016), this shortcoming is an important one to
address. Second, the body of literature examining simultaneous foci and forms of fit among
students is just starting to develop, often limiting themselves to one particular form of fit
assessed in relation to one or two different foci. Thus, we have limited information regarding the
extent to which students perceive distinctions and discriminate between closely related fit-foci,
and we also have limited information regarding the extent to which additional foci and forms
incrementally improve predictive validity in the university context.
Simultaneous Foci of Different Forms of Fit
In terms of the organizational-level foci, researchers have consistently found that
individuals readily perceive PO Fit, so much so that it is often assessed prior to entry and
explains applicant attraction to organizations, as well as employee selection (Schneider et al.,
1995). Among students, examining fit with an organizational focus is also the most well-
developed and robust body of PE Fit research in the academic context (e.g., Westerman &
Vanka, 2005; Lawrence & Lawrence, 2009). Organizations (as a whole) represent an important

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 9
contextual operationalization of PE Fit, and we predict that new students, even though they are
quite early in their academic careers and have limited information, will also perceive PO-fit in
terms of both needs-based (i.e., this university fulfills important needs for me) and values-based
(i.e., this university shares important values with me) forms. We make this prediction because
these forms of fit represent simultaneous, yet distinct, reasons why students might be attracted to,
join, and remain with their universities (Schneider et al., 1995; Yang & Yu, 2015).
Less clear is the extent to which new students simultaneously perceive other foci of fit
with entities or groups within the university, such as their instructors or classmates. We argue
that examining the extent to which students simultaneously perceive multiple foci of fit is
important because students may focus on certain foci more than others, which can ultimately
help universities to understand if there are specific areas in which to improve new students’
experiences. There have been a limited number of studies that examine different fit foci among
students, including classmates. However, these kinds of studies typically have not yet examined
discriminate or predictive validity when considered in conjunction with multiple foci (e.g.,
Sortheix & Lönnqvist, 2015) and multiple forms (e.g., Chen & Yao, 2015) of fit. Further, despite
the fact that the quality of student-instructor relationships is generally considered to be an
important predictor of student success (e.g., Komarraju, Musulkin, & Bhattacharya, 2010), we
are unaware of any studies that examine fit in terms of an instructor focus.
We predict that new students will perceive both needs-based and values-based fit in terms
of instructor and classmate foci because these organizational groups are fundamental parts of the
academic context. As such, students frequently interact with their instructors and classmates
starting on or before the first day of classes. At times, interactions are likely to be needs-related
and more task oriented (Edwards et al., 2006; Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), while at

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 10
other times interactions are likely to be more values-based and characterized by mutual attraction
and trust (Edwards & Cable, 2009). For example, Tinto (2006) identifies instructor-student
interactions as a critical relationship influencing student outcomes. As such, instructor-focused
needs-based fit is likely to be relevant when students are dependent on their instructors to
provide direction on assignments (e.g., compatibility of communication styles), and instructor-
focused values-based fit is likely to be relevant when students seek out like-minded instructors to
provide formal and informal mentoring. Alternately, and more in-line with research examining
learning communities (Tinto, 1997), classmate-focused needs-based fit may be important when
students rely on each other for completing assignments (e.g., compatibility of work ethic), and
classmate-focused values-based fit likely serves as a foundation for friendship, social support,
and common-interest group.
H1: New students will perceive their university, instructors, and classmates as
distinct foci of both needs-based and values-based fit.
Fit, Intention to Recommend, and Intention to Turnover
Beyond understanding the multiple forms and foci of fit that students hold, it is important
to examine how these multiple perceptions of fit relate to important outcomes for both students
and universities. Given the importance of enrollment and retention to both parties, we focus
specifically on students’ intentions to recommend their university to others, and students’
intentions to leave the university.
Needs-based Fit. Students’ interactions with their university, instructors, and classmates
often takes on a needs-based orientation. For example, many students attend university with the
pragmatic intent of preparing themselves for a future career and may be focused on fulfilling
training and certification-related needs; instructors fulfill these needs by provide this training

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 11
through formal classroom instruction and out-of-class assignments; and classmates further assist
in need-fulfillment as they help study and complete group assignments. Thus, we believe that
new students will perceive needs-based fit with their university, instructors, and classmates
because these relationships often serve a practical purpose. We predict that students who
perceive needs-based fit with their university, instructors, and classmates will be more likely to
recommend their university to others (e.g., Groth, 2006) and less likely to intend to quit their
academic studies (e.g., Hausmann, Schofield, & Woods, 2007) because, when needs-based fit is
high, students perceive these foci to be providing desired benefits (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005),
such as preparing them for future careers and helping them to succeed in their university studies.
H2: Students’ perceptions of needs-based fit with their classmates, instructors,
and university will have a positive relationship with intention to recommend the
university to others.
H3: Students’ perceptions of needs-based fit with their classmates, instructors,
and university will have a negative relationship with intention to quit the
university.
Values-based fit. Students’ interactions with their university, instructors, and classmates
can also take on a values-based orientation. Universities frequently define themselves in value-
laden terms (e.g., inclusive, collaborative, ethical, and entrepreneurial); instructors often become
personal mentors providing value-laden advice; and similar values can contribute to friendships
between students and their classmates. These kinds of interactions often facilitate a sense of
belonging among new students (Hoffman, Richmond, Morrow, & Salomone, 2002). When
values-based fit is high, student perceive these foci as has having similar standards for normative
behavior (Edwards & Cable, 2009). Given that similarity often provides the foundation on which

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 12
strong relationships are built (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001), we predict that students
who perceive higher degrees of value-based fit will be more likely to recommend their university
to others (e.g., Groth, 2006) and be less inclined to leave (e.g., Hausmann, Schofield, & Woods,
2007), based on the positive experiences and relationships they have developed with each of
these foci.
H4: Students’ perceptions of values-based fit with their classmates, instructors,
and university will have a positive relationship with intention to recommend the
university to others.
H5: Students’ perceptions of values-based fit with their classmates, instructors,
and university will have a negative relationship with intention to quit the
university.
Methods
Participants and Procedure
The sample population was the entire incoming class of 362 new full-time students at the
business college of a large mid-western university. Data were collected at two points in time in
order to reduce the occurrence of common method variance (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003). The time 1 survey was distributed in the 6th and 7th week of fall semester. The
time 2 survey was distributed approximately 4 months later in the spring semester. We received
281 responses to Time 1 survey and 186 responses to the Time 2 survey. Matching of responses
from Times 1 and 2 was done using respondent-specific codes created by the students
themselves. After eliminating cases with inappropriate or incomplete responses and eliminating
cases where it was impossible to match Time 1 and Time 2 responses, we had a final sample size
of 113 students who completed both surveys – a 31% completion rate. This final sample size

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 13
exceeded the estimated 95 respondents required to identify an effect size of .15 with p < .05
using 6 independent variables and 2 control variables (as calculated by the online estimator
located at www.danielsoper.com). Respondents were 62% female with and an average age of
18.51 years, ranging from 18 to 20.
Measures
All independent and dependent variables were measured using 7-point Likert type scales.
The perception of needs-based fit was measured 3 separate times at Time 1 by adapting Cable
and DeRue’s (2002) three-item measure of fit to separately reflect the university (e.g., “This
university provides just about everything I want from my university”), instructors as a group
(e.g., “My instructors provide just about everything I want from my instructors”), and classmates
as a group (e.g., “My classmates provide just about everything I want from my classmates”).
Respondents indicated the degree to which they fit in relation to all three foci. The university-
targeted measure (α = .87), the instructor-targeted measure (α = .86), and the classmates-targeted
measure (α = .86) all had strong reliability.
Similarly, the perception of values-based fit was also measured at 3 times at Time 1 by
adapting Cable and DeRue’s (2002) 3-item measure to separately reflect the university (e.g.,
“My personal values match the university’s values”), instructors as a group (e.g., “My personal
values match my instructors’ values”), and classmates (e.g., “My personal values match my
classmates’ values”). The university-targeted values-fit measure (α = .88), the instructor-targeted
values-fit measure (α = .92), and the classmates targeted values-fit measure (α = .90) all had
strong reliability.
Intention to Recommend was measured at Time 2 by adapting Groth’s (2006) 4-item
measure of customer-based citizenship. This measure asked respondents to indicate the extent to

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 14
which they would recommend the university (as a whole) to coworkers, family, peers, and
potential students (e.g., “I am likely to recommend the university to family members”). The
measure was reliable (α = .93). Intention to Turnover was measured at Time 2 by using 4 items
(e.g., Bluedorn, 1982) reflecting students’ intention to leave the university (e.g., “I would like to
transfer to another school within the next six months”). This measure was also reliable (α = .93).
The control variables of age and gender were measured using single-item questions. Age
data was reported in years and gender was indicated by a check box. Table 1 reports means,
standard deviations, and correlations.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Age 18.51 .52
2. Gender .38 .45 -.18
3. Needs Fit-
University
5.42 .90 .06 .10 (.87)
4. Values Fit-
University
4.76 .90 .06 .12 .46** (.86)
5. Needs fit-
Instructors
5.04 .83 .12 .07 .48** .43** (.86)
6. Values fit-
Instructors
4.57 1.04 .15 -.09 .10 .43** .42** (.88)
7. Needs fit-
Classmates
4.89 .92 .08 .11 .32** .33** .48** .26** (.92)
8. Values fit-
Classmates
4.81 1.01 .04 .03 .21* .18 .25** .17 .36** (.90)
9. Intention to
Recommend
5.80 1.00 -.04 -.09 .44** .26** .28** .07 .38** .19 (.93)
10. Intention
to Turnover
2.01 1.47 -.09 -.05 -.40** -.17 -.25** -.06 -.33** -.11 -.46** (.93)
Notes. Age reported in years. Male coded 0 and female coded 1. N = 113. Reliabilities for individual measures
are reported on the diagonal. All non-control measures use a seven point Likert-type scale. * p < .05; **p < .01

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 15
Results
We evaluated our measures using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the standards
of root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990) < .08, comparative fit
index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) > .90, and standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMSR, Hu &
Bentler, 1999) < .10. Error terms for positively worded and negatively worded items in our
turnover intention measure were allowed to covary amongst themselves.
To test H1, we performed four different CFAs and used a chi-square difference test to
determine the measurement model that best fit our data (Table 2). The first CFA combined all fit
measures into a single factor that serves as baseline for comparison to potential measurement
models. The second CFA combined both forms of fit across all three foci, resulting in a two-
factor model with one factor representing needs-based fit and the other representing values-based
fit. The third CFA combined both forms of fit, but maintained the distinction between foci. This
three-factor model distinguished between university, instructor, and student foci, but did not
distinguish between needs-based and values-based forms. Our fourth and final CFA maintained
the hypothesized distinctions between forms and foci of fit resulting in a six-factor model. As
reported in Table 2, Chi-square difference tests confirmed that the hypothesized six-factor model
that maintained the distinctions between various foci and forms of fit provided a better
representation of the data than the 1-factor, 2-factor and 3-factor representations. Further
supporting H1, the six factor-model was the only one of the four to exceed our criteria for good
fit (χ2= 381.68, df = 279, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .95, and SRMR =.05), and we conclude that
observed self-reports on measures do reflect the perception of distinctions between underlying
foci and forms fit.

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 16
Table 2
Comparison of Measurement Models Reflecting Forms and Foci of Fit
Measurement
Model
Chi-
Square
Degrees
of
Freedom
Chi-Square
Difference
RMSEA
CFI
SRMR
1-Factor
1742.14
323
-
.20
.36
.15
2-Factor
995.20
309
746.94**
.14
.69
.11
3-Factor
785.64
303
209.56**
.12
.78
.13
6-Factor
381.68
279
403.96**
.06
.95
.05
Note. ** p < .01
We tested Hypotheses 2 through 5 using multiple regression, and Table 3 reports results.
When intention to recommend was the regression criterion (R2 = .27), we found that only
classmates-focused and university-focused needs-based fit were significant predictors.
Interestingly, neither instructor-focused needs-based fit nor any of the values-based fit measures
were significant predictors of intention to recommend the university to others. These findings
provide partial support for H2, and no support for H4. When intention to turnover was the
regression criterion (R2 = .21), we again found that only classmates-focused and university-
focused needs-based fit were significant predictors. Neither instructor-focused needs-based fit or
any of the values –based fit measures were significant predictors of intention to turnover. These
findings provide partial support for H3 and no support for H5.

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 17
Table 3
Results of Multiple Regression
Dependent Variable
Intention to
Recommend
Intention to
Turnover
Age
-.08
-.06
Sex
.01
-.00
Needs Fit-Classmates
.27**
-.26*
Values Fit-Classmates
.03
.05
Needs Fit-Instructors
-.01
.002
Values Fit-Instructors
-.04
.01
Needs Fit-University
.35**
-.35**
Values Fit-University
.03
.07
R2
.27
.21
Adjusted R2
.21
.15
df
8
8
F
4.71**
3.51**
Notes. Standardized coefficients reported. * p < .05;** p < .01
Discussion
In an effort to better understand the discriminant and incremental predictive validity of
multiple foci and forms of fit among new students, we examined how the needs-based and
values-based fit focused at the university, instructors, and classmates predict intentions to
recommend and turnover intentions. In line with our expectations, we found that new university
students perceived all three foci and both forms of fit, and discriminated between them. Further,
we found that the needs-based forms of fit focused on the university and classmates predicted
intention to recommend the university to others and intention to leave the university. Together,
these findings are important for university administrators, suggesting that paying attention to
students’ perceived needs-based fit (i.e., the extent to which the university and their classmates

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 18
fulfill important needs for the student) can support their efforts to increase both enrollment
(through current students recommending the university to others) and retention (through current
students’ intentions to remain at the university). However, contrary to our expectations, we did
not find any relationships between perceptions of fit with instructors and important outcomes,
nor between values-based fit for any of the three exchange partners. These findings raise a
number of issues warranting further discussion.
Surprising (Non)Findings: The Values Form of Fit
The lack of predictive validity for the values-form of fit is surprising. Past empirical
research usually finds both needs-based and values-based fit to be significant predictors of
important outcomes (e.g., Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), with some authors concluding that these
forms are on “equal footing” (e.g., Cable & Edwards, 2004). Further, some research has already
documented relationships between values-based fit and beneficial student outcomes (e.g.,
affective commitment: Lawrence & Lawrence, 2009; student performance: Westerman & Vanka,
2005). However, it is noteworthy that previous education-related person-environment fit studies
that examine values fit have tended to examine only that particular form (Lawrence & Lawrence,
2009), and those few studies that assess multiple forms of fit (e.g., Etzel & Nagey, 2015)
typically don’t include both values-based and needs-based facets. Thus, our (non)findings related
to values-based fit raise the possibility that needs-based fit is the primary and more generalizable
predictor of outcomes, at least when it comes to turnover and recommendation intentions.
However, we caution against over-weighting this straightforward interpretation of our findings as
there are at least two competing explanations.
First, it is worth noting that our respondents were new students who were navigating their
first weeks at university while previous education-related studies examined values fit using

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 19
samples of students containing more experienced students (e.g., Lawrence & Lawrence, 2009;
Westerman & Vanka, 2005). Thus, our results may reflect students perceiving needs-based fit as
more important during this early stage of separation from family and well-established friendship
groups (Tinto, 1988, 1997). As such, it is possible that the two bases of fit are hierarchical for
students. Once students are further along in their transition to university and satisfied that
important needs will be met, values-based fit and feelings of belonging may become more
important. Future research might test this proposition using a longitudinal approach with longer
time horizons than our current study, perhaps collecting data over multiple years, perhaps all the
way through to graduation.
Second, it is also noteworthy that our sample was comprised entirely of students in a
business college. It may be the case that students enrolled in professional colleges that are
generally associated with preparing students for employment in specific jobs/fields (such as
business and engineering) might be focused on more pragmatic needs than are students in
colleges associated more broadly with a liberal arts education (such as humanities). Future
research might test this proposition by designing studies that examine multiple forms of fit using
multiple samples taken from different colleges/majors across the university.
Surprising (Non)Findings: The Instructor Focus of Fit
Also surprising is our lack of findings related to instructor-focused fit. Our initial logic
for including this focus in our examination is that instructors might be viewed as direct and
important points of contact (Tinto, 2016), and thus play an important role in shaping students’
intentions toward the university with respect to recommendations and retention. Also, instructors
provide multiple resources to students, ranging from instruction and assessment to social support.
Therefore, perceptions of fit, whether based on needs or values, should be important predictors

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 20
of future intentions. Our (non)findings raise the possibility that the university and classmate foci
of fit are of primary importance, and the instructor focus of fit may not be as important as we
initially assumed. However, we again caution against over-weighting this straightforward
interpretation of our findings as there remain competing explanations deserving future research
consideration.
Some these competing explanations are directly related to our choice to examine the fit
perceptions of new students at a large university. These new students may not have had time to
develop a relationship with their instructors. Additionally, these students are likely to be taking at
least some large auditorium-style introductory classes. In such an environment, it may be
difficult for new students to perceive that they have any kind of a relationship with their
instructors. Thus, it is possible that instructor-focused fit will become more important over time
as students become more comfortable interacting with instructors and develop relationships and
as classes become smaller. Similar to our observations related to the values form of fit,
researchers looking to explore the possibility that the student-instructor relationship becomes
more important over time will also want to design longitudinal studies that are longer term and
follow students across multiple years.
Another competing explanation for instructor-related non-findings is our choice to assess
perceived fit with a measure that asked students to evaluate their instructors as a group. Thus,
responding to measure items required students to aggregate their perceptions across multiple
instructor, and the measure may have masked any important individual relationships that
students had. We encourage researchers looking to explore individual-oriented instructor fit to
draw on already existing literature related to mentoring students (e.g., Crisp & Cruz, 2009), and

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 21
we also encourage these researchers to design their studies so that they focus on clearly dyadic
student-instructor interpersonal relationships.
Additional Foci and Forms of Fit
For pragmatic reasons, we could not perform a comprehensive examination of potentially
important foci and forms of fit. For example, we examined fit with the university as a whole but
did not include fit with the specific college or faculty. This choice was made under the rationale
that new students would be unfamiliar with the nested nature of a large university. Similarly, we
considered values-based and needs-based forms of fit which are applicable to our chosen
relationship-oriented foci, but did not consider the demands-abilities form of fit because it is
more task-oriented and not applicable to our chosen foci. This third form of fit represents the
degree of congruence between context-related demands and individual competence (Kristof,
1996). Contextual demands represent requirements for specific knowledge, skills, and abilities,
and degree of fit is determined by the extent to which the individual is adequately qualified.
These qualifications are defined by the task at hand and can include mental ability (e.g., Schmidt
& Hunter, 2004) and skill in managing emotions (e.g., Diefendorff, Greguras, & Flenor, 2016),
both of which are likely to be necessary for student success (Etzel & Nagy, 2016).
General vs. Specific Measures of Fit
We measured values-based and needs-based fit by adapting Cable and Derue’s (2002)
measure. This approach measures perceived fit (Kristoff, 1996) as a latent construct by asking
students to provide an over-arching assessment. As such, this measurement method is
appropriate because of the general nature of our research questions (Do specific foci and forms
of fit matter for predicting behavioral intentions?). Further, the validity and versatility of Cable
and Derue’s (2002) measure is well-documented through numerous studies examining a wide

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 22
variety of contexts, including universities (e.g., Etzel & Nagy, 2016). That being said, it would
be interesting and valuable to know which specific needs and which specific values are of critical
importance. To answer this question, future researchers may want to design exploratory studies
aimed at developing list-style fit measures (e.g., Gilbreath, Kim, & Nicols; Kristof-Brown, 2000)
in terms of specific foci. However, researchers will also want to keep in mind that the formative
measures they create may require unique methodological and theoretical considerations
(Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; Howell, Breivik, & Wilcox, 2007).
Limitations
One strength of our study is that we collected data from a cohort of incoming full-time
students at a large public university over two time periods separated by four months. This
longitudinal design alleviated issues related to common method variance (Podsakoff, Mackenzie,
Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). However, we do acknowledge that of the robustness of our findings is
limited in at least four ways.
First, due to the fact that our study examined students who were still in the first year of
their academic career, respondents may not have reached a logical point for deciding to leave or
remain at university. Thus, we examined retention through the lens of behavioral intentions, and
our study assumes that reduced turnover intention is a reasonable proxy for improved future
retention. We believe that this assumption is warranted because of the robust body of past
empirical research documenting the link between intentions and actual behavior (e.g., Tett &
Meyer, 1993; Webb & Sheeran, 2006). However, in order to fully verify a causal relationship,
future researchers examining the effects of fit among students will want to collect data across
multiple semesters while maintaining longitudinal retention records.

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 23
Second, it is noteworthy that we did not sample part-time students or more experienced
students, and results among these alternate populations may be different from ours (e.g.,
Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2008). For example, students who are farther along in their
studies may perceive instructor-focused fit to be of more consequence, and/or have stronger
reactions associated with values-based fit.
Third, universities are diverse, and the relationships we have identified may not be fully
generalizable. Future researchers may want to examine this potential variation by collecting data
in universities that substantially contrast our chosen context, perhaps at smaller or more
specialized universities.
Fourth, our analyses do not include control variables related to ability, personality, or
socio-economic status. Given the importance of these kinds of variables for student retention
(Lotkowski, Robbins, & North, 2004), researchers will want to include these kinds of variables
in their future analyses.
Practical Implications
We believe that our work provides valuable insight related to student enrollment and
retention. The significance of needs-based fit perceptions in our study suggests that recruitment
and retention efforts for new students may be more effective when they are needs-related. We
suggest that administrators, in an effort to improve positive word-of-mouth recommendations
and student retention, find out what their particular student body perceives as being important
needs and then make an effort to fulfill as many of those needs as pragmatically possible. In
particular, understanding students’ needs with respect to their future career goals (and thus
reason for attending the university) and addressing those may lead to significant increases in
positive word-of-mouth recommendations to future students and retention of current students.

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 24
Moreover, the significance of the classmates-based foci in our study suggests that word-of-
mouth recruitment and student retention may benefit from administrative efforts to create
positive relationships among the students themselves. This may be achieved through promoting
and supporting student organizations and extra-curricular activities, or through facilitating
student learning communities in which classmates can fulfill each other’s needs. Another focus
may be student associations affiliated with future career goals and job placement, where students
can see classmates as helping to fulfill their important needs in those areas. Overall, given the
importance of students’ perceptions of classmates’ need-based fit, it is essential that
administrators explore new ways to promote high quality interactions among new students.
Conclusion
Our results suggest that researchers and university administrators would benefit from a
more complete understanding of students’ perceptions of PE-fit in terms of specific foci. Needs-
based fit with the university and with classmates were significant predictors of both intentions to
recommend the university and intentions to remain enrolled at the university. However,
instructor-focused and values-based forms of fit exhibited limited predictive validity. Thus, it
appears that new students care most about their relationships with the university and with their
classmates and how those two constituencies fulfill important needs. Given these results and
potential implications, we believe there is a critical need for additional empirical research aimed
at various foci and forms of PE-fit among the student body. In particular, our surprising
(non)finding regarding students’ fit with their instructor deserves further attention.

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 25
REFERENCES
Abel, J. R., & Deitz, R. (2014). Do the benefits of college still outweigh the costs? Current
Issues in Economics and Finance, 20, 1-12.
Adkins, B., & Caldwell, D. (2004). Firm or subgroup culture: Where does fitting in matter most?
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 969-978. DOI: 10.1002/job.291
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 122,
238-246. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238
Bluedorn, A.C. (1982). The theories of turnover: Causes, effects, and meaning. Research in the
Sociology of Organizations, 1, 75-128.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017). Employment Status of the Civilian Population 25 Years and
Over by Educational Attainment. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875-884. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.87.5.875
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and
empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822-834. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.89.5.822
Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Cheah, B. (2011). The College Payoff: Education, Occupations,
Lifetime Earnings. Georgetown, MA: Georgetown University Center on Education and
the Workforce.

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 26
Chen, A., & Yao, X. (2015). Socialization tactics, fit perceptions, and college student
adjustment. Journal of Career Assessment, 23, 615-629. doi:
10.1177/1069072714553082
Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature
between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50, 525-545. doi:
10.1007/s11162-009-9130-2
Diefendorff, J. M., Greguras, G. J., & Fleenor, J. (2016). Perceived emotional demands-abilities
fit. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 65, 2-37. doi: 10.1111/apps.12034
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 654-677. doi: 10.1037/a0014891
Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The
phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience
of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802-827. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.802
Edwards, J. R., & Bagozi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationship between
constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155-174. doi: 10.1037/1082-
989X.5.2.155
Etzel, J. M., & Nagy, G. (2016). Students’ perceptions of person-environment fit: Do fit
perceptions predict academic success beyond personality traits? Journal of Career
Assessment, 24, 270-288. doi: 10.1177/1069072715580325
Executive Office of the President of the United States (2016). Investing in Higher Education:
Benefits, Challenges, and the State of Student Debt. United States Government.

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 27
Ferris, G. R., Youngblood, S. A., Yates, V. L. (1985). Personality, training performance, and
withdrawal: A test of the person-group fit hypothesis for organizational newcomers.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 377-388. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(85)90045-4
Gabriel, A. S., Diefendorff, J. M., Chandler, M M., Pradco, C. M. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2014).
The dynamic relationships of work affect and job satisfaction with perceptions of fit.
Personnel Psychology, 67, 389-420. doi: 10.1111/peps.12042
Gilbreath, B., Kim, T., & Nichols, B. (2011). Person-environment fit and its effects on university
students: A response surface methodology study. Research in Higher Education, 52, 47-
62. doi: 10.1007/s11162-010-9182-3
Greguras, G. J., & Difendorrf, J. M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-
environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination
theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 465-477. doi: 10.1037/a0014068
Groth, M. 2006. Customers as good soldiers: Examining citizenship behaviors in internet service
deliveries. Journal of Management, 31, 7-27. doi: 10.1177/0149206304271375
Hausmann, L. R. M., Schofield, J. W., Woods, R. L. (2009). Sense of belonging as a predictor of
intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students,
Research in Higher Education, 48, 803-839. doi: 10.1007/s11162-007-9052-9
Hoffman, B. J., Bynum, B. H., Piccolo, R. F. & Sutton, A. W. (2011). Person-organization value
congruence: How transformational leaders influence work group effectiveness. Academy
of Management Journal, 54, 779-796. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2011.64870139
Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J., (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between
person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68,
389-399. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.08.003

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 28
Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., Salomone, K. (2002). Investigating “Sense of
Belonging” in first year college students. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 4, 227-256. doi: 10.2190/DRYC-CXQ9-JQ8V-HT4V
Howell, R. D.., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2007). Reconsidering formative measurement.
Psychological Research Methods, 12, 205-218. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.205
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:
10.1080/10705519909540118
Kim, T., & Kim, M. (2013). Leaders’ moral competence and employee outcomes: The effects of
psychological empowerment and person-supervisor fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 112,
155-166. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1238-1
Komarraju, M., Musulkin, S., & Bhattacharya, G., (2010). Role of student-faculty interactions in
developing college students’ academic self-concept, motivation, and achievement.
Journal of College Student Development, 51, 332-342. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0137
Korn M., & Kuriloff, A. (2015, October 8). Problems mount for the ‘other’ college debt. Wall
Street Journal (Online). Accessed February 2, 2017 from:
https://libproxy.uww.edu:9443/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/171991883
9?accountid=14791
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1996.tb01790.x

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 29
Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’
perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53, 643-
671. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00217.x
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of
individual’s’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-
group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
Lawrence, A., & Lawrence, P. (2009). Values congruence and organizational commitment: P-O
fit in higher education institutions. Journal of Academic Ethics, 7, 297-314.
doi:10.1007/s10805-010-9103-2
Li, Y., Yao, X., Chen, K., & Wang, Y (2012). Different fit perceptions in an academic
environment: Attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Career Assessment, 21,
163-174. doi: 10.1177/1069072712466713
Longwell-Grace, R., & Longwell-Grice, H. (2008). Testing Tinto: How do retention theories
work for first-generation, working-class students? Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 9, 407-420. doi: 10.2190/CS.9.4.a
Lotkowski, V. A., Robbins, S. B., & Noeth, R. J. (2004). The Role of Academic and Non
Academic Factors in Improving College Retention (ACT Policy Report). Retrieved from
http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/college_retention.pdf
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social
networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 30
Meeussen, L., Delvaux, E., & Phalet, K. (2014). Becoming a group: Value convergence and
emergent work group identities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 235-248. doi:
10.1111/bjso.12021
National Center for Education Statistics (2016). The Condition of Education 2016. Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Student Clearinghouse (2015). Completing College: A National View of Student
Attainment Rates Fall 2009 Cohort. Project on Academic Success, Indiana University.
National Student Clearinghouse (2016). Snapshot Report – Persistence and Retention. Project on
Academic Success, Indiana University.
Piasentin, K. A., & Chapman, D. S. (2006). Subjective person-organization fit: Bridging the gap
between conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 202-
221. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.05.001
Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2006). College major choice: An analysis of person-environment
fit. Research in Higher Education, 47, 429-449. doi: 10.1007/s11162-005-9002-3
Roberts, B. W. & Robins, R. W. (2004). Person-environment fit and its implications for
personality development: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality, 72, 89-110. doi:
10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00257.x
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occuptional
attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162-
173. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 31
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 747-773. Doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01780.x
Shin, Y., & Choi, J. N. (2010). What makes a group of good citizens? The role of perceived
group-level fit and critical psychological states in organizational teams. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 531-552. doi:
10.1348/096317909X440233
Sortheix, F. M., & Lönnqvist, J. (2015). Person-group value congruence and subjective well-
being in students from Argentina, Bulgaria, and Finland: The role of interpersonal
relationships. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 25, 34-48. Doi:
10.1002/casp.2193
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation
Approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180. doi:
10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4
Su, R., Murdock, C. D., & Rounds, J. (2015). Person-environment fit. In P. Hartung, M.
Savickas, & B. Walsh (Eds.), APA Handbook of Career Intervention (81-98).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel
Psychology, 46, 259-293. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x
Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflection on the longitudinal character of student
leaving. The Journal of Higher Education, 59, 438-455. doi: 10.2307/1981920
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student
persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599-623. doi: 10.2307/2959965

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 32
Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College
Student Retention, 8, 1-19. doi: 10.2190/4YNU-4TMB-22DJ-AN4W
van Vianen, A. E. M., Shen, C., & Chuang, A. (2011). Person-organization and person-
supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32, 906-926. doi: 10.1002/job.726
Vogel, R. M., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). Integrating the levels of person-environment fit: the
roles of vocational fit and group fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 68-81. doi:
10.1016/j.jvb.2009.03.007
Werbel, J. D., & Johnson, D. J. (2001). The use of person-group fit for employment selection: A
missing link in person-environment fit. Human Resource Management, 40, 227-240. doi:
10.1002/hrm.1013
Westerman, J. W. & Vanka, S. (2005). A cross-cultural empirical analysis of person-
organization fit measures as predictors of student performance in business education:
Comparing students in the United States and India. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 4, 409-420. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2005.19086783
Wintre, M. G., Knoll, G. M., Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M. W., Polivy, J., Birnie-Lefcovitch, S., &
Adams, G. R. (2008). The transition to university: The student-university match (SUM)
questionnaire. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 745-769. doi:
10.1177/0743558408325972
Yang, K., & Yu, T. (2014). Person-organization fit effects on organizational attraction: A test of
an expectations-based model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
124, 75-94. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.12.005

Students’ Perceptions of Fit 33
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior
change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence, Psychological Bulletin, 132, 249-
268. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.2