Publisher
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Place of Publication
Chattanooga (Tenn.)
Abstract
Today, many aspects of life revolve around one’s physical appearance and attractiveness. One’s attractiveness not only has an impact for everyday life, but can also impact other areas in one’s life, especially the workplace (Frieze et al., 1991; Johnson et al. 2010; Nault et al., 2020). My thesis examined whether physical attractiveness of an applicant influences a hiring (and termination) decision through perceived efficacy of the applicant. I found that perceived efficacy significantly mediated the relationship between attractiveness and hiring. However, attractiveness did not influence the firing decision. The purpose of this poster is to further explore the study’s results by examining how attractiveness and hiring choice relate to applicant ratings. RQ 1: Does applicant attractiveness influence ratings of the applicant? RQ 2: Do applicant ratings influence hiring choice? Methods 130 people with experience making hiring decisions were recruited using Prolific and were paid $2.00 for participation. Participants viewed the resume and picture of a job applicant. Participants were randomly assigned to either an attractive or unattractive condition and to either a man or woman condition. Participants rated applicant attractiveness, perceived efficacy, and whether they would hire the candidate. Participants were also asked to rate the candidate on several factors, including if they would recommend the candidate, if the candidate was qualified, how the candidate would perform, how well the candidate would communicate, and the candidate’s ability to get along with coworkers. Participants then viewed a performance review with a picture and a workplace misconduct report of an employee. Participants rated the attractiveness of the employee and whether they would fire the employee. Results To address the research questions, we reviewed the data from applicant ratings that were not included in the original analyses. These results showed that attractiveness was significantly correlated with recommendation, communication, and the ability to get along with a coworker, but not with qualifications or performance (Table 1). Results show that participants think the attractive candidates would have better communication, get along with their coworkers and they would be more likely to recommend hiring this candidate. Implications These findings reveal that one’s physical attractiveness effects how they are perceived and the likelihood they are hired. This has implications for employees and organizations everywhere. These biases, combined or separate, are a disadvantage to both the individual and the workplace. The results of this study highlight the importance of identifying ways to reduce or eliminate the attractiveness bias.
Subject
Industrial and organizational psychology
Document Type
posters
Language
English
Rights
http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Included in
Pretty privilege at work: the influence of physical attractiveness on hiring and rating decisions
Today, many aspects of life revolve around one’s physical appearance and attractiveness. One’s attractiveness not only has an impact for everyday life, but can also impact other areas in one’s life, especially the workplace (Frieze et al., 1991; Johnson et al. 2010; Nault et al., 2020). My thesis examined whether physical attractiveness of an applicant influences a hiring (and termination) decision through perceived efficacy of the applicant. I found that perceived efficacy significantly mediated the relationship between attractiveness and hiring. However, attractiveness did not influence the firing decision. The purpose of this poster is to further explore the study’s results by examining how attractiveness and hiring choice relate to applicant ratings. RQ 1: Does applicant attractiveness influence ratings of the applicant? RQ 2: Do applicant ratings influence hiring choice? Methods 130 people with experience making hiring decisions were recruited using Prolific and were paid $2.00 for participation. Participants viewed the resume and picture of a job applicant. Participants were randomly assigned to either an attractive or unattractive condition and to either a man or woman condition. Participants rated applicant attractiveness, perceived efficacy, and whether they would hire the candidate. Participants were also asked to rate the candidate on several factors, including if they would recommend the candidate, if the candidate was qualified, how the candidate would perform, how well the candidate would communicate, and the candidate’s ability to get along with coworkers. Participants then viewed a performance review with a picture and a workplace misconduct report of an employee. Participants rated the attractiveness of the employee and whether they would fire the employee. Results To address the research questions, we reviewed the data from applicant ratings that were not included in the original analyses. These results showed that attractiveness was significantly correlated with recommendation, communication, and the ability to get along with a coworker, but not with qualifications or performance (Table 1). Results show that participants think the attractive candidates would have better communication, get along with their coworkers and they would be more likely to recommend hiring this candidate. Implications These findings reveal that one’s physical attractiveness effects how they are perceived and the likelihood they are hired. This has implications for employees and organizations everywhere. These biases, combined or separate, are a disadvantage to both the individual and the workplace. The results of this study highlight the importance of identifying ways to reduce or eliminate the attractiveness bias.
Department
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Dept. of Psychology