SCIENTIA. Journal of the Honors Program

Transcription

1 SCIENTIA 2005 Journal of the Honors Program

2 About the Author Elizabeth Gigantelli is receiving Bachelor of Science in Industrial Organizational Psychology with an English minor. After graduation, Elizabeth plans to find a job in her field of study and eventually pursue a Master s degree in the same. She is the recipient of the Psi Chi Research Award at the Easter Psychological Association Conference, Vice President of the Psychology Club, and Treasurer of the Psi Chi National Honor Society. Elizabeth chose to pursue a Citation in Honors to challenge herself and get a bit more out of her college experience, and liked the flexibility in the program and the classes that were offered. She also enjoyed the fact that they were a good combination of interesting and challenging subject matter. Elizabeth would like to thank Dr. Youngblood for her encouragement and help over the past couple of years; her parents for supporting her and pushing her to pursue the Citation in honors, and Christina Elvidge for being so helpful and understanding in this process.

3 41 Attractiveness in the Workplace Elizabeth Gigantelli One of the largest industries in today s society is the fashion and cosmetic industry. It is an industry that annually grosses billions of dollars and can have a large reaching affect on people. This is because what is perceived to be beautiful and attractive drives society. People will try to emulate what society deems as attractive. Attractiveness and physical appearance are such strong factors in today s society. They have far reaching affects on many things such as how we perceive people and their abilities. People have been found to attribute a wide range of positive characteristics to those whom they find to be physically attractive. Those that are deemed to be less attractive receive worse treatment simply because of their appearance. Stevenage and McKay (1999) identified an attractiveness bias which is the idea that what is beautiful is good. They found that society believes that attractive people are seen as having more desirable personality traits, greater job success, happier marriages, and a more fulfilling social life. In past research, Feingold (1992) has established that attractive people are perceived to be more sociable, dominant, warm, mentally healthy, intelligent, and socially skilled. Within a company, decisions are supposed to be made based upon an applicants ability to do the job at hand. Hiring decisions are not supposed to be colored by the appearance of an applicant, their age, sex, race, nationality or other factors that do not affect the way that that person will be able to do their job. Promotions within a company are also supposed to be made on the basis of merit and experience, not on how attractive someone appears to be. Unfortunately, it has been found that many decisions that are being made that concern people s future employment status are being colored by a candidate s perceived attractiveness and/or physical appearance. Discrimination and employment laws such as the Rehabilitation Act, Title VII, and the Americans with Disabilities Act all protect an employee or job candidate from being turned down on the basis of gender, age, race, religion, color, national origin or physical or mental handicap. However, these laws do not prevent a company from

4 42 judging and turning down a candidate on the basis of appearance. In a study conducted by the Harvard Law Review (1987), it was argued that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 should also protect against immutable aspects of body and facial features, such as shortness, obesity and unattractive facial characteristics. It had been found that physically unattractive people face different and unequal treatment in situations in which their appearance was unrelated to their qualifications or abilities. In a study conducted by Stevenage and McKay (1999), recruitment success was assessed based on an applicant s looks. It was hypothesized that the applicants with physical and facial disabilities would elicit negative reactions, and therefore be less likely to be hired. Mock job applications were formed containing a resume and photograph of the applicant. The fictional applicant s appearance was altered with a port-wine stain on the face. The groups were further divided into those with or without physical disabilities. Four categories were established; seated with no physical or facial disfigurement, seated with a visible port-wine stain, seated in a wheelchair with no facial disfigurement, and finally seated in a wheelchair with a visible port-wine stain. Each participant in the study was then asked to respond to a questionnaire assessing personal qualities and job skills, and a final question requiring a yes/no response to whether or not to hire this applicant. Stevenage and McKay (1999) found that personal qualities and job skills were found to be disadvantageous for those with either a facial disfigurement and/or a physical disability. Those applicants that were facially disfigured received the worst ratings. Recruitment personnel had shown a stronger negative reaction to those with a facial disfigurement then to those with a physical handicap. Stevenage and McKay (1999) had found that there was no significant difference in personal qualities and job skills when there was the presence or absence of a wheelchair. However, when it came to the recruitment decision, the presence of a wheelchair reduced the likelihood of an applicant being hired. Those with a facial disfigurement experienced the same disadvantage. It was found that the experience of the interviewer did help to offset some of the negative bias towards wheelchair users, however this did not hold true for facial disfigurements, and in fact recruiters demonstrated a large and negative bias towards applicants with facial disfigurements.

5 43 Attractiveness has been found to be a liability for women when seeking entrance into male-dominated professions. Women that have been deemed unattractive are considered to have advantages over attractive women in traditional male jobs. However, attractive women in female-typed positions were seen as more successful than unattractive women. Unattractive women tend to be recommended for raises more often and are also seen as more qualified and more likely to be hired than attractive women because unattractive women are rated as less feminine. The success of unattractive women is more often attributed to ability than that of their attractive female counterparts. Seligman, Paschall, and Takata (1974) found that attractive people are disproportionately likely to receive credit for good outcomes, whereas good outcomes of unattractive people are more likely to be attributed to external factors. In another survey, Gatewood, Lahiff, Deter and Hargrove (1985) found that appearance is the single most important factor in determining a candidate s acceptability for a wide variation of jobs, regardless of the level of training of the interviewers. Cash, Gillen, and Burns (1977) found that attractive women were seen to be less qualified than unattractive women and were less likely to be hired. Cash et al. (1977) also found that the what is beautiful is good idea only held true when applicants match the type of job under consideration. For example, in a managerial job (which is seen as a masculine job) physical attractiveness would become a handicap for women. Heilman and Saruwatari (1979) found that physical attractiveness was shown to be advantageous for men in both managerial and non-managerial jobs, but attractiveness was only advantageous for women in nonmanagerial jobs. For those women that are pursuing managerial positions, attractiveness was actually a detriment. They also found that attractiveness enhances gender characteristics and exaggerates perceptions of gender-related attributes. Attractive women are believed to possess more of the traditional female qualities that have been seen as inappropriate for male tasks. Dipboye, Arvey, and Terpstra (1977) found that perceived attractiveness has a significant affect on recruitment decisions. When it comes to hiring decisions, high performers are generally preferred over low performers regardless of attractiveness. It was also found that attractive people were favored over equally qualified unattractive people in hiring decisions, ratings of competence and likeability, recommendations

6 44 regarding salary and promotion and in evaluations of career potential. Finally, they found that attractive applicants were preferred over unattractive applicants and that men were preferred over women. Dipboye, Fromkin and Wiback (1975) reported that physical appearance seems to have a significant affect on employment selection regardless of job or relevance of appearance to the task at hand. Attractive applicants were more likely to be hired and given higher salaries only when the applicant s qualifications were inadequate. Physical attractiveness had little impact on hiring decisions and salary recommendations when the applicant s qualifications were good. Mack and Rainey (1990) found evidence that suggests that physical appearance and grooming habits are also factors in the hiring process. They found that well-groomed applicants were significantly more likely to be hired than equally qualified poorly groomed applicants. They found that an interviewer s attitude towards an applicant s physical appearance may strongly influence hiring decisions that are being made. Shannon and Stark (2003) conducted a study in which the focus of the study was to manipulate the variables of beardedness and physical attractiveness in job applicants to determine what effects appearance variables have on the evaluation of equally qualified applicants. The second focus of the study was to measure the attitude of subjects towards facial hair and physical attractiveness. Participants in this study received a packet of randomly paired faces with resumes and read fictitious job descriptions, in which all the applicants were equally qualified. They were told to assume the role of Human Resource Manager and evaluate each applicant then choose one person for the position. Shannon and Stark (2003) found a significant trend towards an interaction between beardedness, attractiveness and rater sex. Attractive applicants were selected at a higher frequency then less attractive candidates, and clean-shaven applicants were selected most frequently. Attractive clean-shaven and bearded neutral applicants were selected at the highest rates. Unattractive bearded and neutral mustached applicants were selected at the lowest rates. Most candidates agreed with the statement that male job candidates should go to job interviews clean-shaven. Most participants disagreed with the statement that physical characteristics should play a role in the evaluation of job applicants. Applicant beardedness did play a role in the final hiring decision made by the

7 45 participants in the study; there was a trend toward clean-shaven or full-bearded applicants over those with a mustache for the final hiring selection. In a study conducted by Kyle and Mahler (1996) they examined the effects of hair color and cosmetic use on judgments that are made about female job applicants abilities for professional positions. They hypothesized that the applicants with brunette hair would receive the highest capability scores and the highest recommended starting salary. The lowest would go to those applicants with blond hair. They developed this hypothesis based on societal stereotypes that depict blondes as having low intelligence and ability perform tasks. Brunettes are thought to be studious and more intelligent, and red heads are thought of as being temperamental, hotheaded, and difficult. They also hypothesized that wearing cosmetics would diminish the perception of ones capability to do a job, therefore lowering the starting salary for the candidate at hand. They based this hypothesis on the idea that makeup is perceived as being highly feminine and women would be stereotyped as being less capable of being able to do a job that is perceived to be masculine such as managing. For this experiment, Kyle and Mahler (1996) used one woman, photographed her and then altered her hair color and amount of makeup. Each participant in the study was then given a packet with a resume and a picture of the applicant. They were asked to rate the applicant for an accounting position. They rated capability on a seven point scale and then assigned a starting salary to each applicant. Kyle and Mahler (1996) found that applicants were rated as being significantly less capable when depicted with blond or red hair. The applicant was also rated as being significantly more capable of doing the job when not wearing cosmetics. Finally, significantly lower beginning salaries were assigned to applicants with red or blond hair and to those that were wearing cosmetics. Marlowe, Schneider, and Nelson (1996) conducted a study that found that attractive people are favored over equally qualified unattractive people in hiring decisions. In this study they hypothesized that male applicants would be judged as being more suitable for hiring and promotions than equally qualified female applicants. Another hypothesis was that more attractive candidates would be judged more suitable than those that are equally qualified and are less attractive. A final hypothesis was that attractive women are at a greater disadvantage because of the perceptions that they

8 46 possess fewer traits that fit the description of successful managers. Participants in this study reviewed and evaluated resumes of four applicants. They were to evaluate the applicants on terms of suitability for hire and likelihood of eventual progression into executive positions, and then rank order the applicants. The independent variables in this study were gender and attractiveness. Marlowe et al. (1996) found highly attractive candidates were more suitable for hire and that men were more suitable for hire then women. They also found that highly attractive candidates were more likely to be promoted, as were men more likely to be promoted, over women. They found that attractive female candidates were at an extreme disadvantage compared to the other candidates. Managers with less experience were more likely to consistently rate highly attractive male candidates as being more suitable for hire and as being more likely to be promoted. Inexperienced managers were found to consistently rate marginally attractive females as being less suitable for hire. Finally, managers that were highly experienced showed no evidence of bias in favor of attractive men however, they did show some bias against marginally attractive women consistently rating them as less likely to be promoted. Marlowe et al. found that for female managers, there was a large attractiveness bias evident with low and moderate levels of experience. However, there was no evidence of attractiveness bias for highly experienced female managers. Finally in this study, it was found that when the selection to applicant ratio was low, selection decisions were more likely to be made on the basis of non-job specific characteristics. In other words, when there was not much else to base the hiring decision on, the manager conducting the interview would to turn to other factors such as appearance and attractiveness to determine whether or not to hire the applicant. Raza and Carpenter (1987) conducted a study concerning hiring decisions in employment interviews. They hypothesized that demographic variables will have a limited influence on the outcomes of the interview when the interview was conducted by a professional interviewer. Another hypothesis is that those recommend for hiring would be judged as potentially good general employees and have the requisite skills for that particular job. Finally, physical attractiveness ratings indirectly influence the employability decision through likeability. Each participant in the study interviewed the

9 47 applicant. After the interview, they filled out a questionnaire which requested demographic information of the interviewer and of the applicant. Then, it asked for ratings of the applicant on intelligence, physical attractiveness, likeability, and skill level for the job and finally to assess ratings on the two decision variables of hirability and employability. Raza and Carpenter (1987) found that older applicants were rated lower in intelligence by male interviewers. Older applicants were also rated lower in attractiveness by female interviewers, and older applicants received lower hiring recommendations. Female interviewers rated all applicants significantly higher than male interviewers on intelligence, attractiveness, likeability, and skill. Male interviewers gave female applicants higher attractiveness ratings, and female interviewers rated male applicants to be significantly higher on attractiveness. Applicant ratings, and occasionally hiring decisions, are associated with demographic variables and applicant ratings are positively associated with interviewer outcomes. Female interviewers gave higher specific ratings and higher hiring recommendations than males. However, female and male interviewers did not differ significantly in employability ratings. Applicants received higher hiring recommendations and general evaluations if they were liked by the interviewer and seen as intelligent, skillful, and attractive. They also found that attractive applicants are recommended to receiver higher starting salaries. Drogosz and Levy (1996) conducted a study that looked at the effects of appearance, gender, and job type on performance decisions. They hypothesized that attractive men will be rated higher on masculinity ratings than unattractive men and attractive women will be rated higher on femininity ratings than unattractive women. Participants in this study examined a packet of performance reviews; evaluations of the employees who were identified as occupying the job for one year and surpassing all the minimum performance levels for the job. The packet also contained pictures of four employees. The participants then answered questions concerning the evaluation of performance. Drogosz and Levy (1996) found that in this study attractive men were perceived as being more masculine and that attractive females were perceived as being more feminine. They also found that attractive individuals rated higher on composite performance evaluations regardless of gender or job type.

10 48 Morrow, McElroy, Stamper and Wilson (1990) conducted a study in which they studied whether physical attractiveness of a candidate would be rated as more favorable than unattractive candidates for managerial jobs, whether male candidates would be rated more favorable than female candidates for managerial jobs and finally whether younger candidates would be rated as more favorable than older candidates for managerial positions. The method of this study was that participants received a questionnaire, job description of a regional manager position, candidate information sheet, an evaluation form, a photograph of the applicant and equal opportunity information related to the candidate. The evaluation form asked participants to respond to and make ratings on the candidates in four topic areas; endorsing the candidate for promotion, the probability for promotion in the future, how successful they will be in the new position and finally, if they should receive additional training before assuming the new position. Morrow et al. (1990) found that the physical attractiveness of a candidate significantly affected recommendations for promotion and expected future success. Those that were rated as being attractive received stronger recommendations for promotions and higher expectancy for future success ratings. They also found that the idea of the what is beautiful is good mentality only applies to cases where the rater and candidates are in the opposite age categories. Younger raters perceived that attractive older female candidates were more likely to receive future promotions. Older raters perceived that attractive younger female candidates were more likely to receive future promotions. Physical attractiveness significantly affected the extent to which personnel professionals would recommend a candidate for promotions and expectancy for future success. Chung and Leung (2001) developed a study that would evaluate performance information and physical attractiveness effects on a manager s decisions for promotions. The purpose of this study was to examine if prior conclusions would generalize to promotion decisions and to examine if the sex of the incumbent and the sex of the decision maker would effect the promotion decisions. In this study, participants had to evaluate six employees and select one for promotion. Brief descriptions of previous performance along with a photograph classified as attractive, unattractive, or mildly

11 49 attractive and a work performance description of either good or mediocre were included in a packet for the participant. Chung and Leung (2001) found that when the performance of the candidate was rated as being high, physical attractiveness had little effect on promotion. If the performance was seen as being mediocre, the more attractive candidates were seen as more likely to be promoted. It was found that attractiveness had a small impact on social evaluations of the candidates when their performance was high. In contrast, a candidate that was deemed mediocre, but of high attractiveness, tended to be rated less positively than candidates of medium or low attractiveness. When the performance of the candidates was high, attractiveness had a small effect on the ability index, however, when a candidate s performance was mediocre, those candidates of high attractiveness were perceived as having higher ability then those candidates that were seen as being of low or medium attractiveness. The ability index accounted for a significantly high amount of variance in promotion order than perceived attractiveness and social evaluation index. The effect of physical attractiveness was only prominent when a candidate s previous performance was mediocre. Heilman and Stopeck (1985) conducted a study to evaluate if there were different causes for success in males and females. They hypothesized that the success of attractive male managers would be attributed to ability and the same would occur for female unattractive managers, opposed to their counterparts. Participants in the study were presented a short description of a career path for an executive and then asked to respond to a questionnaire. Each subject received a packet with the one page career path for an executive and the individual s identification card. They were then instructed to read the description and answer the questionnaire. Heilman and Stopeck (1985) found that ability is generally seen as being more responsible for the success of the rapid risers than those that are on a regularly passed track within a company. Luck was viewed as more responsible for the success of unattractive men and for the success of attractive women. Relationships were generally viewed as more responsible for the career progression of men and that a candidate s sex and ascent interaction was significant only when the candidates were depicted as being unattractive for work-based and socially based relationships. Also, relationships were

12 50 seen as more responsible for career progress when the candidate was attractive. Ability was viewed as the primary cause of success for unattractive women. Attractive males were viewed as more capable of doing their job then attractive females which were viewed as being the least capable of doing their job. Heilman and Stopeck (1985) also found that the attractive candidates were viewed as being more likeable. As for interpersonal integrity, attractive males were seen as having greater amounts compared to their unattractive counterparts, whereas attractive females were seen as having less interpersonal integrity. Attractive males were viewed as being more masculine and attractive females as being more feminine. They found that attractiveness, in turn, has negative consequences for female managers even if they were proven to be successful and to have reached the executive level on their own merits. Their success is attributed to luck and they are judged to be less capable than their unattractive female counterparts. They are believed to have gotten to their position for reasons other than their skill or talents. Heilman and Stopeck (1985) found that attractiveness did not always prove to be disadvantageous for perceptions of competence. It was found that attractiveness was beneficial for male managers which will persist when they are successful. Their success was then more often attributed to ability than that of their less attractive male counterparts. They were also viewed as being more capable of doing their job. Attractive candidates were seen as exerting less effort to move up the corporate ladder. Finally, attractive males were seen as having more integrity than unattractive males, but the opposite held true for women and attractiveness led to more favorable ratings for men but not women. Ideally the only characteristics that employers should attend to are those that will directly affect an applicant s ability to perform the duties that are required for the available position, looks should not factor into this decision at all. However it has been shown that this is not the case at all. Males and females are being judged on their looks. Appearance is hard to ignore and will carry some weight on an employers decision, whether it is to hire, not hire, promote or not to promote. However females are still at a greater disadvantage in the workplace because of stereotypes that society is continuing to perpetuate. Females are being discriminated against on the basis of looks instead of

13 51 being judged on their ability. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed because it is in violation of equal opportunity laws, but because it is so hard to prove it is hard to address. Attractiveness plays a bigger part in the workplace than most people are aware of, as well as having more power over critical employment decisions then it should.

14 52 References Cash, T. F., Gillen, B. & Burns, D. S. (1977). Sexism and "beautyism" in personnel consultant decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, Chung, P. & Leung, K, (2001). Effects of performance information and physical attractiveness on managerial decisions about promotion. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128, Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D. & Terpstra, D. E. (1977). Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resume evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L. & Wiback, K. (1975). Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, Drogosz, L. M. & Levy, P. E. (1996). Another look at the effects of appearance, gender, and job type on performance-based decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, Facial discrimination: extending handicap law to employment discrimination on the basis of physical appearance.(1987) Harvard Law Review, 100, Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, Gatewood, R., Lahiff, J., Deter, R., & Hargrove, F. (1985). Effects of Training on the Selection Interview. Paper presented to the Academy of Management Meeting, San Diego, CA. Heilman, M. E. & Saruwatari, L. R. (1979). When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearance and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, Heilman, M. E. & Stopeck, M. H. (1985). Attractiveness and corporate success: Different causal attributions for males and females. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, Kyle, D. J. & Mahler, H. I. M. (1996). The effects of hair color and cosmetic use on perceptions of a female s ability. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20,

15 53 Mack, D. & Rainey, P. (1990). Female applicants grooming and personnel selection. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,5, Marlow, C. M., Schneider, S. L. & Nelson, C. E. (1996). Gender and attractiveness biases in hiring decisions: Are more experienced managers less biased? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), Morrow, P.C., McElroy J. C., Stamper, B. G., & Wilson, M. A., (1990). The effects of physical attractiveness and other demographic characteristics on promotion decisions. Journal of Management, 16, Raza, S. M. & Carpenter, B. N. (1987). A model of hiring decisions in real employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, Seligman, C., Paschall, N, & Takata, G. (1974). Effects of physical attractiveness on attribution of responsibility. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 6, Shannon, M. L. & Stark, C. P. (2003). The influence of physical appearance on personnel selection. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, Stevenage, S. V. & McKay, Y. (1999). Model applicants:: The effect of facial appearance on recruitment decisions. The British Journal of Psychology, 90,