Are Attractive individuals perceived as being more Employable than less-attractive individuals?

AbstractBackground: Past research (Hosoda, et al, 2003; Luxen & van de Vijver 2006; Hosoda, Stone-Romero, and Coats, 2003; Chiu & Babcock, 2002) suggests that an individuals perceived attractiveness has an effect on whether they are recognised as being employable Aim: The aim of the study is to measure the effect of attractiveness on employability whilst also measuring other factors such as gender, sociability and honesty. Method: A 2x2 ANOVA was conducted on the data collected from a sample of 2112 participants who completed a 10 item questionnaire based on one of four images. Results: The results from the data collected show that hypothesis 1, 3 and 4 were supported whilst hypothesis 2 was not. Suggesting that perceived attractiveness does have an effect on employability and perceived sociability and honesty. Employability was not found to be affected by gender.

Introduction

Individuals who are perceived as being physically attractive are also believed to be more socially desirable, competent, socially adept, and employable, amongst other things. Stereotyping on physical appearance is used by society every day, judgements and assumptions are made about individuals based on the way they look, without any knowledge of the qualities they hold (Griffin & Langlois, 2006). It has been suggested that Disney films are partly accountable for embedding the physical-attractiveness stereotype from an early age, this is due to the fact that the more attractive characters within the movies possess more positive characteristics such as higher intelligence and a gentle persona, whilst the ‘ugly’ characters exhibited negative characteristics such as aggression and violence (Bazzini, Curtin, Joslin, Regan & Martz, 2010). Attractive individuals are perceived as being more intelligent, truthful and socially adept and successful in comparison to less-attractive individuals. This is at least the stereotype which was originally identified in the 1970’s (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972) and has been supported by numerous studies since (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani & Longo, 1991; Ruffle & Shtudiner, 2015; Paustian-Underdahl & Walker, 2015), many of which examined the physical-attractiveness stereotype and how it influences perceptions in areas such as success in the work-place.

Hosoda, Stone-Romero, and Coats (2003) conducted a meta-analytic review of experimental studies which investigated the physical-attractiveness stereotype on a variation of employment outcomes, they found support for the implicit personality theory as attractive individuals reported more positive outcomes and success rates in comparison to less-attractive individuals. These finding were further supported more recently by Luxen and van de Vijver (2006) and Ruffle and Shtudiner (2015), their research investigated the outcome of potential employment opportunities based on perceived attractiveness, using resumes which included either attractive or less-attractive male or female photographs they found that attractive candidates were rated favourably across industries, this bias in physical attractiveness did not however, appear to be affected by applicants gender other than attractive females receiving less call backs than that of less-attractive and no picture disclosed females. These findings are disputed by Tews, Stafford and Zhu (2009) who explain that whilst attractiveness is an overall stereotype in society, it does not affect the employability of an individual, on the job performance was found to be more important.

This bias between genders has been disputed by Reuben, Sapienza and Zingales (2014). They set out to investigate whether gender discrimination was evident amongst employment opportunities in professions such as science, technology and mathematics. No differences amongst men and women were found in the scores on arithmetic tests, although this didn’t seem to matter when it came to

being chosen for employment opportunities. Results showed that when either a male or female employer was supplied with nothing but a candidates photograph (makes sex and appearance clear), both sexes were far more likely to employ men rather than women. Similar finding were reported more recently from a meta-analysis of 136 studies carried out by Koch, D’Mello and Sackett (2015). They concluded that overall, gender-bias was apparent when the employment opportunity was male-dominated, yet not with female-dominated jobs or jobs where no sex was labelled with a preference. Both male and female employers showed a bias in their decision making, more so in male employers, however when employers were informed of participant’s capabilities and experience, attitudes changed and gender-bias reduced. This suggests that employers, when offered nothing but a picture of an applicant, display a large bias in their decision making (Reuben et al, 2014; Koch et al, 2015)

Furthermore, Luxen and van de Vijver (2006) conducted three studies using a variation of participants to investigate the impact of attractiveness on employability. Participants were required to examine photographs and questionnaires based on the opposite sex, using high and low contact-intensity measures, they reported that attractiveness-bias is evident amongst all participants alike when contact-intensity is expected to be high, however, when contact-intensity in expected to be low, attractiveness-bias decreased. Findings also reported that the effect of attractiveness fluctuated dependant on the gender of both participant and applicant.

The physical attractiveness stereotype is believed to be related to various other factors, the way a person looks can have a significant impact on how society perceives them. Research has found that attractive individuals are perceived as being more honest, knowledgeable and socially adept (Rhodes, 2006; Montepare & Zebrowitz, 2002; Eagly et al, 2001). Taking these factors into account could possibly signify why attractive individuals are perceived as being more employable.

The aim of the study is to assess whether gender and perceived attractiveness has an effect on whether an individual is perceived as employable. Taking the above previous findings into consideration, the current research will look at four hypothesis. H1: physical attractiveness will affect employability; H2: gender will influence employability; H3: there will be an interaction between physical attractiveness and gender and H4: perceived attractiveness will have an effect on perceived sociability and honesty.

Methods

Participants

Data was collected from 2309 participants using a stratified sample of male and female participants, due to some data displaying impossible scores, 197 data sets were removed (n=2112). Eight participants did not disclose their age (n=2103, M=23.4, SD=8.2), however data from all 2112 participants was used in the final results. There were no exclusion criteria for participant selection. The participants were made up of 1056 males (50%) and 1056 females (50%), this was to ensure that data was reliable and could be generalised to the wider public.

Design

An experimental design was conducted and a 2x2 ANOVA was used to measure the influence of two IV’s (attractiveness and gender) on the perceived employability of an individual. Attractiveness included two levels (attractive and less-attractive) and gender consisted of two levels (male and female). Other variables (honesty and sociability) were also measured to ascertain whether a pattern was apparent.

Materials

A 10 item questionnaire (please see Appendix) was used to assess individuals’ perceptions towards attractive and less-attractive males and females. The questionnaire was in reference to a description of a teaching post advertisement, each questionnaire was assigned with of 1 of 4 images (attractive male or female, less-attractive male/female) and consisted of the same various question types including four Likert scale questions (e.g. How employable do you think this person is?, How honest do you think this person is?) which measured attitudes on how individuals perceived others, based on their appearance. Each version of the 4 questionnaires was to be completed different male and female participants, in order to ascertain gender differences.

Procedure

Using a stratified sample, data was collected by students from a Psychology course group (each student collecting 8 pieces of data). Each student invited participants to take part in the study. Upon acceptance, they were given an information sheet and instructed to read thoroughly and carefully. If the participant was happy with the instructions, they were asked to sign a consent form, along with the researcher. Once the participant had been fully informed of what was required of them, they were given a copy of the job advertisement and questionnaire and were assured that there was no time-limit for completion, so long as they read the job advert and each question fully and answered truthfully. After completion of the questionnaires, the participant was given a debriefing sheet (please see Appendix for information sheet, consent form and debriefing sheet).

Ethics

Participants were made aware that any information they supplied would be anonymous, whilst also being confidential. Information would be destroyed 24 months after completion of the study. Informed consent was required from all participants, this was acquired by the signing and dating of a consent form. All procedures were adhered to by British Psychological Society (BPS).

Results

The data in table 1 shows that attractive males (M=6.8, SD=1.41) and females (M=7.1, SD=1.42) are considered to be the most employable, compared to less-attractive males (M=6.3, SD=1.57) and females (M=5.8, SD=1.73). The standard deviation for each group tells us that less-attractive females had a wider distribution of scores in comparison to the other groups. Data for the effect of participant gender is shown in table 1, however this will not be discussed within this paper due to word limitations.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics for scores on Employability, based on Gender and perceived Attractiveness.

ImageGender

Image Attractiveness

Participant Gender

Mean S/D

Female Attractive Female 7.17 1.32Male 6.94 1.50Total 7.05 1.42

Less-Attractive Female 5.94 1.65Male 5.72 1.81Total 5.83 1.73

Male Attractive Female 6.92 1.35Male 6.64 1.47Total 6.78 1.41

Less-Attractive Female 6.41 1.50Male 6.11 1.63Total 6.26 1.57

A Kolomogorov-Smirnov (KS) test was conducted to measure whether data was normally distributed. Results found that the scores for the employability of the image were not normally distributed (D(2112)=.20, p<.01), however due to the large data set, a visual examination of the kurtosis and skewness levels (please see Graph 1) was carried out which revealed that the difference from normal distribution is acceptable based on the sample size.

Graph 1: Shows Kurtosis and Skewness levels from KS test

Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance was employed and found that the variances in perceived employability based on attractiveness and gender were significantly different (F(3,2108)=18.06, p<.05), however the variance F-ratio shows that this is not likely to be the case (Pearson & Hartley, 1954, cited in Field, 2014).

Based on the findings of the KS and levene’s tests, a 2x2 ANOVA was conducted on the influence of two independent variables (attractiveness and gender) on the perceived employability of an individual. Results from this indicate a support for Hypothesis 1 (physical attractiveness will affect employability) as the main effect for attractiveness produced an F ratio of F(1,2108)=338.13, p<.01, np2=.076, with an R2 of .325 indicating a significant difference between attractive images (M=6.92, SD=1.42) and less-attractive images (M=6.04, SD=1.67). The effect of Gender did not give support to Hypothesis 2 (gender will influence employability) as the main effect for gender produced an F ratio of F(1,2108)=1.45, p>.05, np2=.001 indicating that the effect for gender was not significant, females (M=6.44, SD=1.70) males (M=6.52, SD=1.52). Whilst gender alone was not found to have an influence on perceived employability, an interaction effect was found between attractiveness and gender, showing that attractive females are rated slightly higher by both male and female participants (see graphs 2 & 3), F(1,2104)=27.66, p<.001, np2=.013, therefore supporting Hypothesis 3 (there will be an interaction between physical attractiveness and gender).

0

FREQ

UEN

CY

600

Data showing the interaction of Gender and Attractiveness from the perception of both Male and Female participants

Graph 2: How Employable is the Image – Female Participants Graph 3: How Employable is the image – Male Participants

7.6

7.4

7.2

7.0

6.8

6.6

6.4

6.2

6.0

5,8

5.6

Attractive Less Attractive Attractive Less Attractive

Other variables (honesty and sociability) were also measured to ascertain whether a pattern was apparent. The effect of perceived sociability on attractiveness produced an F ratio of F(1,2108)=708.84, p<.01, np2=.252. Attractive males (M=7.06, SD=1.30) and attractive females (M=6.65, SD=1.34) were considered to be more sociable than less-attractive males (M=5.47, SD = 1.442) and less-attractive females (M =4.97, SD=1.56), the perceived honesty on attractiveness follows a similar pattern F(1,2108)=7.70, p<.01, np2=.004, attractive males (M=6.27, SD=1.54) and attractive females (M=6.62, SD=1.37) were considered to be more slightly more sociable than less-attractive males (M=6.21, SD =1.43) and less-attractive females (M=6.33, SD=1.48), this supports Hypothesis 4 that perceived attractiveness will have an effect on perceived sociability and honesty.

Discussion

The present study set out to assess whether gender and perceived attractiveness has an effect on whether an individual is perceived as employable.

The results from the data collected show support for hypothesis 1, that physical attractiveness will effect employability. Research into the effect of perceived attractiveness on employability has increased dramatically over the years. Many of which are consistent with the above findings, in 2003, Hosoda and colleagues investigated various factors relating to attractiveness and employability, overall it was reported that more attractive individuals were more successful that less-attractive individuals in employment-related outcomes, this finding was not effected when experience and capabilities were provided. They further reported that regardless of the age, gender and/or profession of the participants, they still displayed a physical-attractiveness stereotype. Furthermore, in 2015, Ruffle and Shtudiner looked at the effect of attractiveness on employability. They sent two (1 with 7 1 without photograph, otherwise almost identical) job applications to 2656 vacancy advertisements, they found that applications with images of attractive males received more

Female

Male

Female

Male

call backs than applications with average looking men and those without a photo, however with females, more call-backs were received for those who did not include a photograph. They concluded that the main reason for this bias against women could possibly be due to female jealousy in the workplace (Hosoda, et al, 2003)

The results of the current findings did not show support for hypothesis 2, that gender will effect employability. The current study reports that gender-bias is not apparent in perceived employability. As previously mentioned, there is significant previous research which supports the hypothesis that gender will effect employability (Ruffle & Shtudiner, 2015; Koch et al, 2015). Whilst the present study did not obtain results in agreement with these, this could be due to many differences within the methodologies. For instance, Ruffle and Shtudiner used a much larger data-set (5312) by obtaining data from a much larger sample would have a great impact on the overall results, furthermore, their investigation included full applications to actual real-life jobs, whereas the present study acquired data from the general public which did not incorporate real-life employment situations, possibly effecting the overall findings. Koch and colleagues measured data at various intervals, they found that based on image alone, gender-bias was apparent, however once capabilities and experience were reported, gender-bias decreased. By collecting data at different stages could prove much more reliable in reporting differences in people’s attitudes.

An interaction between physical attractiveness and gender was found within the current study, which supports hypothesis 3. Extensive research agrees with the notion that attractiveness and gender are found to have an interaction (Luxen & van de Vijver 2006; Hosoda et al, 2003; Chiu & Babcock, 2002). In 2006, Luxen and collegues set out to investigate the effect of gender and attractiveness on employment opportunities. Using both students and HR professionals they conducted three separate studies and found that females displayed a preference to hire attractive males over attractive females, This pattern however was not displayed by male employers as they did not show any preference between attractive males and females. Possibly backing up the notion set by Hosoda and colleagues (2003) of female jealousy in the workplace

Finally, results of the current study also offer support to hypothesis 4 that that perceived attractiveness will have an effect on perceived sociability and honesty. These findings are in support to past research (Rhodes, 2006; Montepare & Zebrowitz, 2002; Eagly et al, 2001). Which investigated whether attractive individuals were perceived to possess traits such as honesty and sociability.

There are various important limitations to the present study that should not go unnoticed. Firstly, the materials used consisted of a questionnaire which measured explicit attitudes. Future research could look to extend measures to include, not only a wider range of questions but also implicit measures. By extending research to measure both implicit and explicit attitudes would allow for a more reliable and truthful set of results. This is because people often hold unconscious negative attitudes which they are not actually aware of. Additionally, data was obtained from the general public which did not incorporate real-life employment situations, possibly affecting the overall findings, future research should look to make investigation more true to life. Finally, the current materials consisted of two attractive and two less-attractive individuals, however, due to individual preferences, participants could hold differing opinions of attractiveness which brings about inaccuracy.

In conclusion, taking the current study and past research into consideration, it is evident that a physical-attractiveness stereotype in evident in society. In order to fully understand attitudes to attractiveness-bias, research should continue to measure factors such as age and gender whilst also employing various other methodologies and looking into other factors such as culture and job-

sectors. Doing this will not only measure different aspects of attitudes within specific populations and cultures, it will also provide a more comprehensive and widespread range of data.

References

Bazzini, D., Curtin, L., Joslin, S., Regan, S., & Martz, D. (2010). Do Animated Disney Characters Portray and Promote the Beauty-Goodness Stereotype?. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 40(10), 2687-2709. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 24(3), 285-290.

Eagly, A., Ashmore, R., Makhijani, M., & Longo, L. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but . . .: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 109-128.

Griffin, A., & Langlois, J. (2006). Stereotype Directionality and Attractiveness Stereotyping: Is Beauty Good or is Ugly Bad?. Social Cognition, 24(2), 187-206. Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E., & Coats, g. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 431-462.

Koch, A., D’Mello, S., & Sackett, P. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 128-

Luxen, M., & Van De Vijver, F. (2006). Facial attractiveness, sexual selection, and personnel selection: when evolved preferences matter. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 27(2), 241-255.

Paustian-Underdahl, S., Walker, L., & Woehr, D. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1129-1145.

Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2014). How stereotypes impair women's careers in science. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences, 111(12), 4403-4408.

Rhodes, G. (2006). The Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Beauty. Annual Review Of Psychology, 57(1), 199-226. Rhodes, G. (2006). The Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Beauty. Annual Review Of Psychology, 57(1), 199-226.

Ruffle, B., & Shtudiner, Z. (2015). Are Good-Looking People More Employable?. Management Science, 61(8), 1760-1776.

Tews, M., Stafford, K., & Zhu, J. (2009). Beauty Revisited: The impact of attractiveness, ability, and personality in the assessment of employment suitability. International Journal Of Selection And Assessment, 17(1), 92-100.

Zebrowitz, L., & Montepare, J. (2008). Social Psychological Face Perception: Why Appearance Matters. Social Pers Psych Compass, 2(3), 1497-1517.

Title of Project: Factors that affect people’s judgement of potential applicants

Researcher: Rachel Hagan

You are being invited to take part in a research study. Before you decide it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it involves. Please take time to read the following information. Ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. Take time to decide if you want to take part or not.

1. What is the purpose of the study?The aim of this research is to examine the factors that affect people’s judgement of potential job applicants.

2. Who can take part?Males and females over the age of 18 are eligible to take part in the study.

3. Do I have to take part?No. It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. If you do, you will be asked to sign a consent form. Due to anonymity, you will not be able to withdraw after you have been debriefed, however information you provide will be kept confidential. A decision to withdraw will not affect your rights/any future treatment/service you receive.

4. What will happen to me if I take part?You will be asked to read a job description for an English teacher and then answer a short questionnaire about an applicant applying for the job. Completion of the questionnaire will take approximately five minutes.

5. Are there any risks / benefits involved?There are no intended benefits associated with taking part. However the resulting data may help the researcher find out what factors affect employment.

LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY

6. Will my taking part in the study be kept confidential?Any information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. You do not have to provide a name on any questionnaires or information sheets and therefore the information you provide cannot be identified with your name. You are requested to provide the researcher with a signed or initialled consent form. This will be kept by the researcher separate from the any other information you provide. This will be stored securely and destroyed within 24 months of completion of the study.

7. Who to contact with enquires about this study?Rachel Hagan – r.hagan:2014.ljmu.ac.uk

CONSENT FORM

Project title: Investigating the factors that affect people’s judgement of potential job applicants

Researcher: Rachel Hagan

1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information provided for the above study. I have had the opportunity to consider the information, ask questions and have had these answered satisfactorily

2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and that this will not affect my legal rights.

3. I understand that any personal information collected during the study will be anonymised and remain confidential

4. I agree to take part in the above study

Name of Participant Date Signature

Name of Researcher Date Signature

Thank you for participating in this study.

Hopefully this has given you an interesting insight into research in the area of factors that affect people’s judgement of potential job applicants

The aim of the research was examine the factors that affect people’s judgement of potential job applicants

It is not possible to provide participants with their individual data or to withdraw specific data after debriefing, as it has all been kept completely confidential and anonymous. Data would be kept on file for 24 months, after which it will be destroyed.

If you wish to know the overall findings of the study or would like more information or to comment on your experience please feel free to contact either Rachel Hagan (r.hagan@2014.ljmu.ac.uk) or Susan Palmer Conn (s.e.palmer-conn@ljmu.ac.uk)

Thank you again for your participation

LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY

DEBRIEFING SHEET

English Teacher Required for Liverpool School

Recruiter: Hope High

Salary: £18,000 to £38,000 per year

Location: Liverpool City Centre

Descriptor: English teacher. An English vacancy has recently become available within the English department at a great secondary school located in Liverpool. This position has the potential to become a permanent teaching position from January 2016 in this well established English department with a friendly and supportive Head of English. The post would suit a hardworking and dependable teacher with great management and organisational skills. Good subject knowledge is essential, and the candidate should enjoy working with children from a diverse background.

Please read the following job advert.

Questionnaire

Nicola has a 2:1 degree from Liverpool John Moores University. She is hard working and works well in a team. She has relevant previous

experience of working with children.

1. How old do you think this person is? …..……………...years

2. How sociable do you think this person is?

Extremely unsociable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely Sociable

3. How honest do you think this person is?

Extremely dishonest

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely honest

4. How attractive do you think this person is?

Extremely unattractive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely attractive

5. Would you employ this person for the job advertised? Yes No

6. How employable do you think this person is for the job advertised?

Extremely unemployable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely employable

7. Are you employed? Yes No

8. If yes, how long have you been in your current job? …………………months

9. How old are you? ……….…………years

10. What is your gender? Male Female

English Teacher Required for Liverpool School

Recruiter: Hope High

Salary: £18,000 to £38,000 per year

Location: Liverpool City Centre

Descriptor: English teacher. An English vacancy has recently become available within the English department at a great secondary school located in Liverpool. This position has the potential to become a permanent teaching position from January 2016 in this well established English department with a friendly and supportive Head of English. The post would suit a hardworking and dependable teacher with great management and organisational skills. Good subject knowledge is essential, and the candidate should enjoy working with children from a diverse background.

Please read the following job advert.

Questionnaire

Nicola has a 2:1 degree from Liverpool John Moores University. She is hard working and works well in a team. She has relevant previous experience of working with children.

1. How old do you think this person is? …..……………...years

2. How sociable do you think this person is?Extremely unsociable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely Sociable

3. How honest do you think this person is?Extremely dishonest

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely honest

4. How attractive do you think this person is?Extremely unattractive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely attractive

5. Would you employ this person for the job advertised? Yes No

6. How employable do you think this person is for the job advertised?Extremely unemployable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely employable

7. Are you employed? Yes No

8. If yes, how long have you been in your current job? …………………months

9. How old are you? ……….…………years

10. What is your gender? Male Female

Thank you for completing this questionnaire

English Teacher Required for Liverpool School

Recruiter: Hope High

Salary: £18,000 to £38,000 per year

Location: Liverpool City Centre

Descriptor: English teacher. An English vacancy has recently become available within the English department at a great secondary school located in Liverpool. This position has the potential to become a permanent teaching position from January 2016 in this well established English department with a friendly and supportive Head of English. The post would suit a hardworking and dependable teacher with great management and organisational skills. Good subject knowledge is essential, and the candidate should enjoy working with children from a diverse background.

Please read the following job advert.

Questionnaire

Andrew has a 2:1 degree from Liverpool John Moores University. He is hard working and works well in a team. He has relevant previous experience of working with children.

1. How old do you think this person is? …..……………...years2. How sociable do you think this person is?

Extremely unsociable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely Sociable

3. How honest do you think this person is?Extremely dishonest

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely honest

4. How attractive do you think this person is?

Extremely unattractive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely attractive

5. Would you employ this person for the job advertised? Yes No

6. How employable do you think this person is for the job advertised?

Extremely unemployable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely employable

7. Are you employed? Yes No

8. If yes, how long have you been in your current job? …………………months

9. How old are you? ……….…………years

10. What is your gender? Male Female

English Teacher Required for Liverpool School

Recruiter: Hope High

Salary: £18,000 to £38,000 per year

Location: Liverpool City Centre

Descriptor: English teacher. An English vacancy has recently become available within the English department at a great secondary school located in Liverpool. This position has the potential to become a permanent teaching position from January 2016 in this well established English department with a friendly and supportive Head of English. The post would suit a hardworking and dependable teacher with great management and organisational skills. Good subject knowledge is essential, and the candidate should enjoy working with children from a diverse background.

Please read the following job advert.

Questionnaire

Andrew has a 2:1 degree from Liverpool John Moores University. He is hard working and works well in a team. He has relevant previous experience of working with children.

1. How old do you think this person is? …..……………...years

2. How sociable do you think this person is?

Extremely unsociable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely Sociable

3. How honest do you think this person is?

Extremely dishonest

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely honest

4. How attractive do you think this person is?

Extremely unattractive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely attractive

5. Would you employ this person for the job advertised? Yes No

6. How employable do you think this person is for the job advertised?

Extremely unemployable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely employable

7. Are you employed? Yes No

8. If yes, how long have you been in your current job? …………………months

9. How old are you? ……….…………years

10. What is your gender? Male Female