Friday, March 31, 2017

Job Applications: Does Physical Attractiveness Make a Difference?

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.

(ljs)

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2017/03/job-applications-does-physical-attractiveness-makes-a-difference.html

| Permalink

Comments

Thanks for catching the typo. I've fixed it.

Posted by: Louis Sirico | Apr 1, 2017 11:11:55 AM

Does makes? Check your headline.

Posted by: Otto stockmeyer | Apr 1, 2017 6:28:27 AM

Post a comment