To Hire or Not to Hire: Attractiveness Bias in the Workplace

1
To Hire or Not to Hire Attractiveness Bias in
the Workplace
2
Attractiveness Bias Variations in Hiring

• More attractive more likely to hire
• More attractive less likely to hire
• No attractiveness bias
• Attractiveness bias only for low qualified
  applicants

3
Hypothesis

• Poorly Qualified Resume
• Attractive higher ratings
• Unattractive lower ratings
• Highly Qualified Resume
• No effect from attractiveness on ratings

4
Method

• Participants- 68 students at a private
  southeastern university.
• 2 x 2 between-subjects design
• Random assignment- unmarked envelope

5
Materials

• Job Description
• Resume
• 1) High Quality
• 2) Low Quality
• Photographs
• 1) Attractive
• 2) Unattractive
• Questionnaire
• Perceived Qualification
• Likelihood of Interview Offer
• Likelihood of Promotion
• Perceived Qualification as Rater
• of Past Jobs Held

6
Results- Perceived Qualifications

• No significant difference between perceived
  qualifications of attractive and unattractive
  applicants.

7
Results- Interview Offer

• Main effect between the means of the attractive
  photograph and the unattractive photograph.
• Main effect between the mean rating for the high
  quality resume and the mean rating for the low
  quality resume.
• No interaction between picture type and resume
  quality.

8
Results- Promotion

• The attractiveness of the individual had no main
  effect on promotion.
• Main effect found for the quality of the resume.
• Significant difference between the mean for the
  high quality resume and the mean for the low
  quality resume.
• Interaction was found between the attractiveness
  of the applicant and the quality of the resume

9
(No Transcript)
10
Discussion

• Attractiveness did not effect qualification.
• Attractiveness still biased their interview
  offers.
• Unattractive, qualified applicant more likely
  to be promoted than an attractive, qualified
  applicant
• Unattractive, unqualified applicant less likely
  to be promoted than an attractive, unqualified
  applicant.

11
Problems/ Limitations

• Use of student raters
• Contradictions in present study and past research