Friday, March 31, 2017
So, what else is new? Here’s an in-depth study that confirms what most of us think.
All the analyses revealed an attractiveness bias in which the attractive candidates were evaluated more favorably than unattractive candidates.
A job sex-type X applicant sex interaction revealed that males were evaluated more favorably for male-typed positions and females for female-typed positions. . . .
The findings suggest that the bias is robust across stimuli as well as human participants. No evidence was found for a beauty is beastly effect. Exploratory analyses suggested that a bias against attractive females is limited to a narrow domain of jobs. [I fixed what appears to be a typo in the original.]
You can read more here, Robert Dipboye & Lyndsey Dhahani, Exploring the Effects of Physical Attractiveness in Job Applicant Evaluations: Taking Into Account Stimulus Variability.