SCIENTIA

2005

Journal of the Honors Program

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.

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

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.

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 non-

managerial 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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

52

References

Cash, T. F., Gillen, B. & Burns, D. S. (1977). Sexism and "beautyism" in personnel

consultant decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 301-310.

Chung, P. & Leung, K, (2001). Effects of performance information and physical

attractiveness on managerial decisions about promotion. The Journal of Social

Psychology, 128, 791-801.

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, 288-294.

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, 39-43

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, 437-445.

Facial discrimination: extending handicap law to employment discrimination on the basis

of physical appearance.(1987) Harvard Law Review, 100, 2035-2052.

Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin,

111, 304-341

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, 360-

372.

Heilman, M. E. & Stopeck, M. H. (1985). Attractiveness and corporate success:

Different causal attributions for males and females. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 70, 379-388.

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, 447-455.

53

Mack, D. & Rainey, P. (1990). Female applicants grooming and personnel selection.

Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,5, 399-407.

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), 11-21

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, 723-736.

Raza, S. M. & Carpenter, B. N. (1987). A model of hiring decisions in real employment

interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 596-603.

Seligman, C., Paschall, N, & Takata, G. (1974). Effects of physical attractiveness on

attribution of responsibility. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 6, 290- 296.

Shannon, M. L. & Stark, C. P. (2003). The influence of physical appearance on

personnel selection. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 613-624.

Stevenage, S. V. & McKay, Y. (1999). Model applicants:: The effect of facial

appearance on recruitment decisions. The British Journal of Psychology, 90, 221-

234.