Faculty
Richard Ilkka - Research
Applicant Appearance and Selection Decision Making: Revitalizing Employment Interview Education
Published in Business Communication Quarterly, 58, Sept., 1995, 11-18.
Richard J. Ilkka
(Ph.D., University of Minnesota, 1974)
Professor and Head
Division of Communication
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Stevens Point, Wisconsin 54481
715-346-3409
Fax:: 715-346-3998
E-Mail: rilkka@uwspmail.uwsp.edu
Abstract
As a topic within the larger corpus of materials on selection interviewing, applicant appearance has been addressed through advice giving, folk wisdom, and other prescriptions. As presented, such materials tend to undermine opportunities for issue identification and assessment . Through review and interpretation of that employment interview research which specifically addresses the relationship between applicant appearance and interviewer selection decisions, the purpose of this paper is to encourage those who teach, train, and counsel others on employment interviewing to devote more studied attention to appearance issues and ethics. To that end, five instructional propositions are offered. Each proposition is developed through review of related research and then capped by instructional observations.
Eavesdropping may be inappropriate but it can be instructive. Prior to the start of a conference program on employment interviewing, an eavesdropper heard two professors lamenting about the low regard their respective colleagues had for interviewing as a course of study. Both educators felt their interviewing courses were perceived as atheoretical, devoid of research analysis, and lacking critical assessment, and instead, were viewed as skills-oriented activities based more on prescription and folk wisdom. Of course, neither of the two professors believed that interviewing literature in general or selection interviewing literature in particular, lacked theoretical extrapolations (e.g., Ralston & Kirkwood, 1995) or significant research (e.g., Dipboye, 1992). Yet when applied to many current texts and one suspects, many classrooms, the above perception may not be altogether unfair. And as the eavesdropper reflected on what might account for such perceptions, the topic of applicant appearance came readily to mind.
Applicant appearance materials, especially on "dressing for success," are widely available in popular writings, (e.g., Molloy, 1988). Such materials provide advice, interesting anecdotes, and unfortunately, minimal research citation. Conversely, empirical research published over the past few decades in such areas as personnel psychology, business management, and communication, is well grounded if not always as advisory or anecdotal. This research also addresses a variety of appearance related variables, focusing upon alleged influence and reporting findings that are sometimes equivocal, occasionally incompatible, and almost always provocative. As a result, empirical research offers educators a rich opportunity to re-discover the complexity of appearance as a topic within the instructional corpus of selection interviewing.
Unfortunately, although a few sources review and critique this research (e.g., Dipboye, 1992; Morrow, 1990), there is no interpretation that facilitates use of such findings for those who counsel, train, or teach potential applicants. Put another way, many interview educators appear to have ignored or at least under utilized this research. For example, many current text writers (e.g., Hamilton, 1993; O'Hair & Friedrich, 1992; Stewart & Cash, 1994; Wilson & Goodall, l99l) selectively cite some of the research but neither offer critical assessment nor invite significant dialogue. Add the alleged folk wisdom and prescriptions of many classroom educators, and a student as would-be-applicant may have a plethora of information and advice but comparatively little acquaintance with research findings or attendant issues.
To the extent practiced, such an approach to this particular area of selection interviewing is instructionally dysfunctional for several reasons. First, exclusive attention to select variables such as dress and grooming, encourages a myopic view of the influence of appearance on hiring decisions. Second, as suggested, educators often codify research findings into rules and advice rather than analyze findings in terms of assumptions and issues. Such codification invites unquestioned acceptance of various appearance schemes (e.g., the alleged influence of the "red power tie"). Ironically, more rigorous attention to appearance research and the issues it raises might also actually improve one's ability to make strategic appearance choices consistent with one's goals and ethics. Third, such selectivity and prescription encourages "beautyism", or acceptance of the idea that what is beautiful is good (e.g., Cash, Gillen, & Burns, 1977; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986; Wolf, 1991). And, unlike sexism, racism, ageism, and disabilities, the legal or ethical implications of "beautyism" are less likely to be examined. Finally, taken together, such reasons underscore a more general, fatalistic attitude, in effect, a kind of anti-issues based approach to the topic, e.g., everyone knows that appearance matters, has "face validity," so why bother to examine what is self evident and unlikely to change? In brief, and however inadvertently, if myopia, codification, "beautyism", and fatalism even somewhat reflect the approach selection interview educators take towards the topic of appearance, then re-invigoration is clearly in order.
Given the above as a call for renewed instructional effort, this paper seeks to answer that call by providing five propositions which offer educators a means of organizing and reinvigorating discussion. Each proposition is initially developed through a review of related research, and then is capped by instructional observations. Together, the review and suggestions invite educators to take what is presented and develop more through, critical and individually tailored approaches.
Educators Should Offer A More Comprehensive (And Critical) Definition
Although selection research (e.g., Dipboye, 1992) identifies several applicant behaviors before during and after the selection interview which may influence interviewer decision making, appearance is typically cast as part of the applicant's nonverbal communication during the interview and can be further framed as a static nonverbal cue versus a dynamic nonverbal cue such as eye contact or gestures (Knapp & Hall, 1992). In turn, of all the physical qualities of an applicant, the impact of attractiveness, whether referenced via an overall rating or specifically, an applicant's face, is the most frequently researched aspect of appearance. Generally, frontal face (or face and upper body) judgments of attractiveness or unattractiveness (e.g., Shahani, Dipboye, & Gehrlein, 1993) are made by raters, with effects often distinguished in terms of applicant sex (e.g., Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979). Although not considered in this paper, research discussing the relationship between appearance and age and race has also been assessed (e.g., Morrow, 1990). Additionally, such judgments are often done on "paper people," and typically focus on those judged to be highly attractive or unattractive, thereby creating a forgotten middle.
The influence of attractiveness on hiring decisions has also been studied in relationship to the mitigating influence of position expections as well as effect. For example, researchers have assessed the influence of attractiveness on positions where attractiveness is job relevant (e.g., Beer & Gilmore, 1982), where attractiveness is an occupational stereotype (e.g., Querseshi & Kay, 1986), and where attractiveness relates to a position type which has been sex role stereotyped (e.g., Cash, et al., 1977). Research on the effects of attraction on selection decisions also suggests significant variation, from moderate influence (e.g., Dipboye, Fromkin, & Wiback, 1975) to pervasive influence (e.g., Raza & Carpenter, 1987).
When considering aspects beyond facial attractiveness, existing empirical research has addressed body types, for example, heavy versus slender (e.g., Harris, Harris, & Bochner, 1982); grooming, for example, jewelry and hairstyles (e.g., Cash, 1985), but also including such specifics as glasses (e.g., Harris, et al., 1982), and cosmetics (e.g., Cox & Glick, 1986). Considerable research has also focused on dress (e.g.,Forsythe, 1990), as well as more detailed study, for example, color, value, and hue (e.g., Francis and Evans, 1988).
Given the above, a few instructional observations follow. While time and space limit what can be covered in classes or texts, rarely is appearance presented as suggested by the above synthesis of current research domains. Unfortunately, attention to dress and grooming often dominate to the exclusion of other areas (e.g., Stewart & Cash, 1994). A more comprehensive approach should be preferred in that it expands student awareness and invites attention to assumptions, concepts, and the interrelationships between and among appearance variables. Simply listing all the ways in which appearance has been researched might be instructive for some. Moreover, even minimal attention to definitions of various appearance attributes might draw attention to the varied assumptions and biases which are otherwise blurred in such research. For example, operational definitions of facial attractiveness are usually based on the rankings of a majority of raters which helps to preserve a kind of monolithic view of what is attractive and what is not. Rather than accepting such definitions, educators could encourage reflection on how such research colors what beauty and ugliness may signify in a culture and specifically, in a selection interview. Presumably, increased attention to questions addressing both the scope and assumptions which frame various notions of appearance might encourage students to become more observant and introspective, especially as they consider the complexity of appearance in relationship to their own future as applicants.
Educators Should Examine The Process Of Appearance Attribution
In a culture which promotes best dressed lists, advice on grooming, and numerous examples of what is considered physically attractive as well as unattractive, it is not surprising when selection interviewing education promotes appearance as a product to be attained yet minimizes study of the judgmental process. While attention to product may enhance effective impression management, allied research on social attraction and first impressions provides material for examining the decision making process or, just how and when such judgments of attractiveness are likely to occur.
Attribution
How attractiveness is processed is well established in the social psychological literature. Attraction research (e.g., Berscheid & Walster, 1974; Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986) provides support for the claim that when people encounter individuals who are decidedly attractive or unattractive, according to widely held cultural stereotypes (e.g., Iliffe, 1960), various attributions may be processed. For example, attractive males and females are viewed as more sociable, friendly, competent, self-confident, popular, more likely to succeed, as well as being better adjusted than people judged to be unattractive. Still another study offers support for the view that attractive people have greater interpersonal influence (Longo & Ashmore, 1992). There is also research which supports a Pygmalion effect (e.g., Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977), in effect, that other observers' expectations about both attractive and unattractive people regarding popularity, job success, etc., influence such people to behave in a confirmatory manner.
Similar attribution processes have been observed specifically within employment interview research. At least as early as the mid 1970's, research (e.g., Dipboye, et al., 1975; Dipboye, Arvey & Terpstra, 1977) established a relationship between judgments of attractiveness and favorable interviewer ratings. Research by Cash and associates (e.g., Cash, et al., 1977; Cash & Kilcullen, 1985) also affirmed the positive correlation between ratings of attractiveness and favorable ratings of applicant personality traits. Gilmore, Beehr, and Love (1986) concluded that applicant attractiveness had more influence on hiring decisions than such factors as sex or type of rater (students or professional interviewers). Gilmore et al. (1986) also found that attractive candidates were likely to be judged as having a more appropriate personality for the job, would be expected to perform better, and would be more likely to be hired. And incidentally, once hired, physical attractiveness may also have modest influence on promotion consideration (Morrow, McElroy, Stamper, & Wilson, 1990).
Primacy Effects
While attributions may be processed throughout an interview, first impression research helps to underscore their initial significance to later selection decisions. For example, although research findings are mixed (Buckley & Eder, 1988; Huegli & Tschrigi, 1975; Springbett, 1958), there is some indication that interviewers make decisions to hire early in the interview. There is also some evidence that early impressions have more impact than factual information on hiring decisions (Schmitt, 1976). Farr and York (1975) also reported that when one final rating is to be made, and when information in the interview sequence is equally favorable from start to finish, the earlier information (primacy effect) influences the final judgment about the candidate more than does the information presented later (recency effect). Unfortunately, research also suggests that negative first impressions have more impact than positive ones on hiring when the negative occurs early in interviews (Rowe, 1989; Springbett, 1958).
While none of the above research focuses specifically on physical appearance, given that about 65 per cent of the total messages sent in a face to face encounter are in the nonverbal band, in effect, dynamic and static nonverbal cues, (Knapp & Hall, 1992), it seems reasonable to assume that a significant number of the total messages sent in the opening of an employment interview would involve static nonverbal cues, e.g., facial structure, body size, and clothes, and that based upon such messages, some tentative judgments occur. Extrapolating from the above research, such initial impression formation, developed in part from initial attributions regarding attractiveness, might reasonably contribute to later selection decision making.
In any case, while most selection educators may be quite familiar with attribution and primacy/recency research, there appears to be little discussion of such material beyond stressing the importance of first impressions and the likelihood of an early , global decision (e.g., first four minutes) by an interviewer (e.g., Stewart & Cash, 1994). At the very least, the above research should invite additional dialogue on the ethics and efficacy of appearance as an impression management strategy. For example, beyond the question of what to wear should be other questions related to why and why not, as well as questions addressing the relative influence or lack thereof. To advise a student to make a good first impression because the interview may for all intents and purposes be over in the first four minutes may get her attention . Yet such a comment says very little about what part appearance may play in such a decision much less how and why such decisions may or may not occur. Attention to these additional questions should enrich understanding, and whether intended or not, might actually improve the effectiveness of a given applicant's susequent impression managment.
Educators Should Explore Appearance And Position Expectations
Prior expectations about the influence of attractiveness do attend to certain positions and as such provide a filter for judgments about individual job candidates. As organized in this paper, current research is grouped into three lines of inquiry: (a) research which suggests that a given candidate's attractiveness influences selection only when attractiveness has been previously established as a job relevant criterion; (b) research which suggests that an attractive appearance is influential when positively and clearly identified as part of an occupational stereotype; and (c) research which claims that an attractive appearance is a significant influence but only if the position applied for is also considered an "appropriate" position for the applicant's sex.
Job Relevance
At least some research (e.g., Beehr & Gilmore, 1982) supports the claim that physical appearance does not influence hiring decisions unless attractiveness is also a job relevant criterion, for example, a fashion model versus an accountant. Beehr and Gilmore (1982) also found that while attractiveness does influence hiring decisions for positions where attractiveness is job relevant, attractive people are not hired only or even mainly because of their looks, even for attractiveness-relevant positions.
Occupational Stereotype
Even if attractiveness is not legitimately job relevant, employers may still hold occupational stereotypes ("beautyism" bias) regarding certain kinds of positions. For example, Quereshi and Kay (1986) claim that the more a job requires interacting with the general public, the more that attractiveness may influence hiring decisions. So for example, while attractiveness may arguably not be job relevant for a receptionist, it is less arguable that such an occupational stereotype exists. Research by Croxton, Van-Rensselaer, Dutton, and Ellis (1989), also observes that attractiveness becomes a more salient criterion when making judgments about high prestige, stereotypical male jobs. Cash et al. (1977) also support the view that the strength of the attractiveness variable may increase for upper strata positions.
Incidentally, occupational stereotyping may not always be to the advantage of the attractive. For example, Snyder, Berscheid, and Matwychuk (1988) found that physical attractiveness may not always be more influential than that appearance which fits a stereotypic view of a job, for instance, a librarian. In effect, while attractive applicants, especially males (Dipboye et al. 1975) may have more of an advantage regarding influence on hiring decisions, an applicant who "looks the part" may have an advantage for given positions over an otherwise attractive rival.
Sex Role Stereotyping
Research (Cash et al., 1977; Cash & Kilcullen, 1985) on the relationship between appearance and sex role biases supports the view that attractiveness is beneficial only when applying for sex-congruent jobs. Cash, et al. (1977) observed that "physical attractiveness affects personnel decisions to the general advantage of good looking applicants, unless they seek jobs considered inappropriate for their sex" (p. 309). Heilman and Saruwatari (1979) also found that attractive females were less likely to get management positions than unattractive ones, underscoring a bias against female managers in general and attractive ones in particular. Fortunately, the Heilman and Saruwatari (1979) study has found little additional confirmation in the literature (Dipboye, 1992). Indeed, there is some research (Izraeli & Izraeli, 1985) which argues that sex role biases are diminishing. Of course, even if the sex role biases are diminishing, it does not mean that "beautyism" is also diminishing. In effect, with more women breaking through management "glass ceilings," it may simply mean that the "beautyism" may now begin to function across an even greater spectrum of jobs levels.
In brief, an approach to appearance education which, for example, examines (a) the possible legitimacy of attraction as a job criterion in given employment contexts and/or (b) the way in which various positions are or have been sex role or occupationally stereotyped, should enrich students' awareness of and sensitivity to the possible influence of appearance expectations which may function as stated or unstated prerequisites for positions they might consider. Equally important for future applicants is additional consideration of other relevant contexts which encompass positions yet through which expectations about appearance may be developed and nurtured. For example, educators might consider the possible influence of corporate culture or regional distinctions on expectations about appearance, and subsequently, selection decisions.
Educators Should Invite Dialogue on Alleged Effects
Such factors as written credentials (Rasmussen, 1984; Ugbah & Major, 1992), verbal communication (Gifford, Ng & Wilkinson, 1985; Ugbah & Evuleocha, 1992), and dynamic nonverbal cues (Young & Beier, 1977) have all been presented as being more influential than static non-verbal cues. Unfortunately, research has yet to establish a multivariate analysis which could confidently rank order the relative influence of all the many variables impacting upon interviewer decision making. In any event, current research on the variable of attractiveness suggests two divergent effects characterized here as the "tie breaker effect" and the "domino effect."
Tie Breaker Effect
Some research (Dipboye, et al., 1975; Dipboye, et al., 1977) supports attractiveness as something of a tie breaker when all else is held constant/equal. In Dipboye, et al., (1975), the researchers found that scholastic standing accounted for 30 per cent of the influence on interviewer decision making. But with applicants of equal standing, a bias existed in favor of males and attractive candidates. Kinicki and Lockwood's (1985) research also supports the observation that physical appearance may have a tie breaking influence in the initial screening interview. Young and Beier (1977) also claim that nonverbal behaviors (dynamic cues) are more influential than attractiveness but that attractiveness may become something of a relevant tie breaker when the dynamic nonverbal behaviors of two applicants are similar.
Domino Effect
While attractiveness may have limited but significant influence on hiring decisions, there are at least a few studies which argue for a broader, more pervasive influence. In a study by Raza and Carpenter (1987) the authors empirically tested a model of attractiveness influence and found that such demographics as age and sex of the interviewers and the applicants as well as the type of job involved, influenced the interviewers' judgments of the applicants' attractiveness. In turn, the interviewers' judgments of attractiveness influenced their likeability towards the applicants. Likeability judgments influenced interviewers' judgments of the applicants' intelligence, and judgments of intelligence influenced assessments of the applicants' skills. Raza and Carpenter (1987) also contended that the last three qualities, likeability, intelligence, and skill, were the three main influences on interviewers' assessment of a given applicant's employability and, finally, that a judgment of employability influenced judgments related to potential for hire. In a study involving less complex causality, Kinicki and Lockwood (1985) also claimed that judgments of attractiveness influenced interviewers' assessment of an applicants' skills and in turn, suitability for hire.
In brief, deciding whether judgments of attractiveness function as a tie breaker between otherwise equal candidates or whether such judgments have some more pervasive, domino-like effect may not be as important for educators and trainers as developing dialogue with and among students based upon relative effect. Such discussions might develop in several useful ways, for example, depending on class level and objectives, students might focus upon problems of research methodology and design and/or informally debate the relative influence of various static nonverbal cues on subsequent selection decision making.
Educators Should Assess Related Appearance Variables
In addition to research addressing face and upper body judgments of attractiveness, everything from body type, to amount of cranial hair, height, dress (color, value, hue), glasses, jewelry, and cosmetics has been studied in relationship to interviewer decision making. Contemporary texts which address the employment interview frequently focus upon these related variables, particularly clothing and grooming (e.g., Hamilton, 1993; Stewart & Cash, 1994) but in the process, encourage readers to plan strategy rather than examine cultural stereotypes which pervade them. A more critical assessment of the assumptions under girding such influence variables seems warranted if for no other reason than to achieve a better understanding of the role of appearance in the selection decision making process.
Body Type Research (Benson, Severs, Tagenhorst, & Loddengaard, 1980; Hankins, McKinnie, & Bailey, 1979; Harris, et al., 1982; Larkin & Pines, 1979; Rothblum, Miller, & Garbutt, 1988) has clearly established what most U.S. citizens already know, in effect, that endomorphic body types (especially very obese individuals) are the victims of an unfavorable cultural stereotype. For example, the Hankins, et al., (1979) study found no difference between tall versus short (height) or bald versus full (cranial hair), but did note significant differences between slender or normal and obese people, with the former two body types rated as more assertive, as making better supervisors, as being more favorably accepted by colleagues and by supervisors. The authors explain the difference by noting that height and hair were perceived as outside of one's control, but that body weight may be voluntarily regulated. Harris, et al.,(1982) also found that both obese men and women were viewed as less active, intelligent, hardworking, attractive, popular, successful, and athletic than persons of normal weight. Larkin and Pines (1979) concluded that overweight people were viewed more negatively on variables considered relevant for successful job performance and, that overweight people were less highly recommended than people of average weight even when both body types scored the same on objectively identical performance tests.
Dress
Being physically unattractive and/or obese are in part related to genetics, and while change is possible through surgery and/or diet, such changes are often difficult to accomplish. However, dress provides an opportunity for more manageable change and at least some research suggests that dress which reflects prevailing cultural expectations for the employment interview, may be more influential than physical attractiveness. In a study on the influence of physical attractiveness, dress, and job type, Johnson and Roach-Higgins (1987) found that style of dress had a consistent influence on interviewers perception of employability. Riggio and Throckmorton (1988) found appropriate dress to be stronger than physical attractiveness in terms of impact on judges' evaluations of potential for hire.
However, even if appropriate dress has more influence than physical attractiveness, dress is a variable which can be neutralized in that both attractive and unattractive applicants can dress appropriately. For example, research by Bardack and McAndrew (1985) indicates that attractive applicants still retain an advantage over unattractive applicants when both dress appropriately. Specifically, the authors found that an unattractive person who dressed appropriately only slightly improved chances for being hired whereas an attractive person who also dressed appropriately improved chances for being hired significantly more. Indeed, and somewhat inconsistent with Riggio and Throckmorton (1988), Bardack and McAndrew (1985) suggest that there is some evidence that even attractive but inappropriately dressed applicants were hired more often than unattractive applicants who dressed appropriately.
While the relative influence of attractiveness and dress will probably be the subject of further research and debate, guidelines for what constitutes appropriate dress for the employment interview are, for the moment, more agreed upon in both research and popular writings (e.g., Molloy, 1988), and for both men and women. Regarding males, Scherbaum and Shepherd (1987) had MBA students judge an artist's sketches of applicants. The sketches varied in sex, color of suit (blue or red), and the presence/absence of a jacket (layering). The sketch of a person wearing a blue jacket was perceived as more competent and properly dressed than those illustrated as wearing red or no jacket. The study also found that the manner of dress of the males had more impact on the MBA evaluators than the manner of dress of the females. The authors confirm what appears to be a deeply ingrained cultural stereotype regarding the expected style for males taking interviews, darker colors and layering, in effect, the traditional dark suit. Damhorst and Reed (1986) and Francis and Evans (1988) also support the importance of value (dark attire) on assessments of employment potential.
Riggio and Throckmorton (1988) also noted that no specific business uniform for women exists in the minds of evaluators. However, their research concludes that if women are to dress suitably, it probably means conforming to what has become a cultural stereotype for the well dressed, aspiring female executive, in effect dress which to some extent reflects traditional male attire. Research by Forsythe, Drake, and Cox (1985), supports a similar conclusion, noting that masculinity of a female's attire favorably enhances selection decisions. Using the same women dressed in four different outfits, evaluators gave more favorable ratings to those females dressed in blazers or short belted jackets or tailored suits than when the same women dressed in a beige dress with a small rounded collar, and gathered, long sleeves. Similar conclusions about clothing choice in effect, a preference for "conservative styles" is reported by Jenkins and Atkins (1990). Forsythe (1990) also supports a masculine style for women, noting that applicants with clothing masculinity were perceived as more forceful, aggressive, and also received more favorable hiring recommendations.
Grooming
Consistent with dress for women which is more masculine and conservative, is research on grooming. Cash (1985) discovered that grooming by women which reflects what was termed, a managerial style, e.g., shorter, simpler hairstyles, hair away from face and lacking adornments, moderate facial cosmetics, tailored blouses and jackets, and simple gold jewelry, was favored by raters, especially male raters. As a part of their study, Harris, et al., (1982) found that men or women wearing glasses were judged as relatively more intelligent, hardworking, and successful, but also, not as active, outgoing, attractive, popular, and athletic as those who did not wear glasses. In a study focusing on cosmetics use, Cox and Glick (1986) found cosmetics use to be positively correlated with perceived attractiveness, femininity, and sexiness. Make-up strengthened sex role stereotypes associated with traditionally feminine jobs (e.g., secretary). No effect was found for non-gender jobs (e.g., accountant). In any case, research findings (e.g., Mack & Rainey, 1990) and popular writings (e.g., Molloy, 1988) are consistent in their observations that such cues have a persistent influence on hiring decisions and may be particularly important for women who may need to attend more than males to dress/grooming cues which manage an impression.
In brief, body type, dress, and grooming also contribute to interviewer decision making. Physical/facial attractiveness and body type are not as easily changed as dress and grooming. Both sexes are also somewhat culturally confined regarding what is appropriate dress and grooming for the job interview and may consider several options regarding dress and grooming which are or are not consistent with personal taste. In turn, selection interview educators might attempt to expand on the advice usually given here, particularly as related to dress and grooming. Questions which discuss the cultural values, e.g., preference for "masculine" dress, might move students to consider interview appearance as more than just finding the culturally correct costume for a given presentation of self. Indeed, questions related to the possible tension between personal choice and such corporate and/or cultural expectations as well as questions related to both the individual and comparative influence of such variables might provide students with more than just tips for playing the part of job applicant.
Conclusion
The above five propositions provide selection educators with some direction for a revitalized discussion of applicant appearance which hopefully goes beyond recitation of advice do's and don'ts. Attention to definitions, process, position expectations, effects, and related appearance variables should enrich both understanding and impression management for the would-be job applicant. After all, until some ideal form of employment interviewing emerges, appearance will most likely have a continuing (and perhaps inordinate) influence on decisions made. Indeed, in an ideal employment interview, the process would involve an exchange of only job relevant information and expectations followed by objective assessment by both parties (Jablin & McCombs, 1984). But employment interviews are not ideal, and in fact, are processed through attention to culturally conditioned cues as discussed .
Given that such cultural stereotyping is unlikely to diminish soon, and recognizing that the propositions advanced hardly exhaust the topic, hopefully, this paper offers some direction and encouragement to teachers, trainers, and others who are charged with providing understanding and advice to prospective applicants. Admittedly, there is much to be discussed in preparing for and participating in an employment interview, and perhaps never enough time/space to cover it all. Nevertheless, more critical attention to applicant appearance should transcend how to make an impression and encompass what making an impression implies by way of both personal and professional choice. If educators ignore the dialogue such choices invite, preferring brief prescriptions and folk wisdom, they should be ready for criticism from colleagues on the value of what they teach. Ideally, future eavesdropping would find professors discussing issues drawn from examination of current research rather than lamenting an image which need not exist.
References
Bardack, N.R. & McAndrew, F.T. (1985). The influence of physical attractiveness and manner of dress on success in a simulated personnel decision. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 777-778.
Beehr, T.A., & Gilmore, D.C. (1982). Applicant attractiveness as a perceived job-relevant variable in selection of management trainees. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 607-617.
Benson, P.L., Severs, D., Tagenhorst, J., & Loddengaard, N. (1980). The social costs of obesity: A non-reactive field study. Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 91-96.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E.H. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 7,158-215). New York: Academic Press.
Buckley, M.R., & Eder, R.W. (1988). B.M. Springbett and the notion of the 'snap decision' in the interview. Journal of Management, 14, 59-67.
Cash, T.F. (1985). The impact of grooming style on the evaluation of women in management. In M. Solomon (Ed.), The psychology of fashion (pp. 343-355), New York: Lexington Press.
Cash, T.F., Gillen, B., & Burns, D.S. (1977). Sexism and ""beautyism"" in personnel consultant decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 301-307.
Cash, T.F., & Kilcullen, R.N. (1985). The eye of the beholder: Susceptibility to sexism and "beautyism" in the evaluation of managerial applicants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 591-605.
Cox, C.L., & Glick, W.H. (1986). Resume evaluations and cosmetic use: When more is not better. Sex Roles, 14, 51-58.
Croxton, J.S., Van-Rensselaer, B., Dutton, D.L., & Ellis, J.W. (1989). Mediating effect of prestige on occupational stereotypes. Psychological Reports, 64, 723-732.
Damhorst, M.L., & Reed, J.A.P. (1986). Clothing color value and facial expression: Effects on evaluations of female job applicants. Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 89-98.
Dion, K.K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is what is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
Dipboye, R.L. (1992). Selection interviews: process perspectives. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Co.
Dipboye, R.L., Arvey, R.D., & Terpstra, D.E. (1977). Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resume evaluation. 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 resume. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 39-43.
Farr, J.L., & York, C.M. (1975). Amount of information and primacy-recency effects in recruitment decisions. Personnel Psychology, 28, 233-238.
Forsythe, S. (1990). Effect of applicant's clothing on interviewer's decision to hire. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1579-1595.
Forsythe, S. Drake, M.F. & Cox, C.E. (1985). Influence of applicant's dress on interviewer's selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 374-378.
Francis, S.K. & Evans, P.K. (1988). Effects of hue, value, and garment style on college recruiters' assessments of employment potential. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 87-93.
Gifford, R., Ng, C.F., & Wilkinson, M. (1985). Nonverbal cues in the employment interview: Links between applicant qualities and interviewer judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 729-736.
Gilmore, D.C., Beehr, T.A., & Love, K.G. (1986). Effects of applicant sex, applicant physical attractiveness, type of rater and type of job on interview decisions. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 103-109.
Hamilton, C. (1993). Communicating for Results, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Hankins, N.E., McKinnie, W.T., & Bailey, R.C. (1979). Effects of height, physique, and cranial hair on job-related attributes. Psychological Reports, 45, 853-854.
Harris, M.B., Harris, R.J., & Bochner, S. (1982). Fat, four-eyed, and female: Stereotypes of obesity, glasses and gender. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 503-516.
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, Mirror... New York: State University of New York Press.
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 non managerial jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 360-372.
Huegli, J.M., & Tschrigi, H. (1975). An investigation of the relationship of time to recruitment interview decision making. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 234-236.
Iliffe, A.M. (1960). A study of preferences in feminine beauty. British Journal of Psychology, 51, 267-73.
Izraeli, D.N., & Izraeli, D. (1985). Sex effects in evaluating leaders: a replication study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 540-546.
Jablin, F.M., & McCombs, K.B. (1984). The employment screening interview: An organizational assimilation and communication perspective. Communication Yearbook, 8, 137-163). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jenkins, M.C. & Atkins, T.V. (1990). Perceptions of acceptable dress by corporate and non-corporate recruiters. Journal of Human Behavior and Learning, 7, 38-46.
Johnson, K.K., & Roach-Higgins, M.E. (1987). The influence of physical attractiveness and dress on campus recruiters' impressions of female job applicants. Home Economics Research Journal, 16, 87-95.
Knapp, M.L. & Hall, J.A. (1992). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Fort Worth: Holt Rinehard and Winston, Inc.
Kinicki, A.J., & Lockwood, C.A. (1985). The interview process: an examination of factors recruiters use in evaluating job applicants. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 117-125.
Larkin, J.C., & Pines, H.A. (1979). No fat persons need apply. Experimental studies of the overweight stereotype and hiring preference. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 6, 312-327.
Longo, L.C., & Ashmore, R.D. (1992). The perceived relationship between physical attractiveness and social influence effectiveness. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
Mack, D. & Rainey, D. (1990). Female applicants' grooming and personnel selection. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 399-407.
Molloy, J.T. (1988). John T. Molloy's new dress for success. New York: Warner Books.
Morrow, P.C. (1990). Physical attractiveness and selection decision making. Journal of Management, 16, 45-60.
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.
O'Hair, D., & Friedrich, G.W. (1992). Strategic communication in business and the professions. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Quereshi, M.Y. & Kay, J.P. (1986). Physical attractiveness, age and sex as determinants of reactions to resumes. Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 103-113.
Ralston, S.M. & Kirkwood, W.G. (1995). Overcoming managerial bias in employment interviewing. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 75-92.
Rasmussen, K.G., (1984). Nonverbal behavior, verbal behavior, resume credentials, and selection interview outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 551-556.
Raza, S.M., & Carpenter, B.N. (1987). A model of hiring decisions in real employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 596-603.
Riggio, R.E., & Throckmorton, B. (1988). The relative effects of verbal and nonverbal behavior, appearance, and social skills on evaluations made in hiring interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 331-348.
Rothblum, E.D., Miller, C.T., & Garbutt, B. Stereotypes of obese female job applicants. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 7, 277-283.
Rowe, P.M. (1989). Unfavorable information and interview decisions. In R.W. Eder & G.R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice.(pp. 77-89), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Scherbaum, C.J. & Shepherd, D.H. (1987). Dressing for success: Effects of color and layering on perceptions of women in business. Sex Roles, 16, 391-399.
Schmitt, N. (1976). Social and situational determinants of interview decisions: Implications for the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 29, 79-101.
Shahani, C., Dipboye, R.L., & Gehrlein, T.M. (1993). Attractiveness bias in the interview: Exploring the boundaries of an effect. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 317-328.
Snyder, M., Berscheid, E., & Matwychuk, A. (1988). Orientations toward personnel selection: Differential reliance on appearance and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 972-979.
Snyder, M., Tanke, E.D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666.
Springbett, B.M. (1958). Factors affecting the final decision in the employment interview. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 12, 13-22.
Stewart, C., & Cash, W.B. (1994). Interviewing: Principles and practices, Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co.
Ugbah, S.D., & Evuleocha, S.U., (1992). The importance of written, verbal, and nonverbal communication factors in employment interview decisions. Journal of Employment Counseling, 29, 128-37.
Ugbah, S.D., & Major, R.E. (1992). Influential communication factors in employment interviews. The Journal of Business Communication, 29, 145-159.
Wilson, G.L., & Goodall, H.L. (1991). Interviewing in context. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth. New York: William Morrow.
Young, D.M. & Beier, E.G. (1977). The role of applicant nonverbal communication in the employment interview. Journal of Employment Counseling, 14, 154-164.
Interviewee Appearance
Page 1
Applicant Appearance and Selection 2