The Relationship between Attractive People and Success in the Job Application Process - Research Paper Example

Importance of topic 2 It used to be that when one spent so much time on his or her appearance, other people called it vanity. There were even casesof excessive vanity as when plastic surgery first became public and people spent a fortune getting their faces and body parts enhanced just to look “beautiful”. Times have changed, however. Making one’s self beautiful is not only accomplished to make society notice the person. Nowadays, it appears to be an invaluable asset for people who would like to be a part of the corporate world. A recruiter has said that they would hire someone with a better appearance than a brilliant but ordinary-looking job applicant. (Bennet, J., 2010) Why should managers be interested? It is important that managers understand the relationship between attractive people getting hired and success in the job application process. This will help them implement non-discriminatory aspects in their hiring procedures or at least come up with regulations regarding the use of attractiveness as a basis for employment. 2- Variable Hypothesis In job postings for flight attendants, one can usually see words such as and synonymous to attractive or pleasant-looking. Often, companies choose good-looking personnel to appear in advertisements such as brochures or billboards. TV advertisements for companies with direct customer contact normally feature people with perfect white teeth, beautiful eyes, engaging smiles and just the right hairstyles. It is hypothesized that attractiveness leads to gaining employment. Definition of variables -Attractiveness What is attractiveness? People normally think of attractiveness as similar to beauty and handsome. Merriam-Webster describes beauty as that characteristic of a person or a thing that gives pleasure to the senses or lifts the mind or spirit. (Beauty, n.d.) The famous philosopher, Aristotle, defined beauty as something which gave pleasure and was valuable in itself. (Tatarkiewicz, W., et. al., 2005) Based on these definitions, it can be assumed that attractive people have inherent qualities which give pleasure to those they interact with. The first variable in the hypothesis is attractiveness. Attractiveness is sometimes categorized into facial and physical. Facial attractiveness focuses on a person’s face. By looking at the whole face or the different parts of a person’s face, an individual may decide whether a person is pleasant-looking or not. Contrary to what some people think, perfectly-shaped faces do not influence perceptions of facial attractiveness. Research shows that “symmetry and attractiveness were not strongly related in faces of women or men (Zaidel, D., 2005).” A study discovered that for women, facial attractiveness can be further divided into two levels – sexual and nonsexual. Where the sexual level sees attractiveness as a representative of reproductive potential, the nonsexual level recognizes it as the totality what they see. (Penn State, 2009) Scientists also found out that men are inclined towards feminine faces while women’s choices vary due to hormonal factors. (Facial Attractiveness, 2010) On the other hand, physical attractiveness means more than a pretty face. It encompasses everything – face, body and style among others. A person’s culture is influential in his perception of physical attractiveness. Body size can also determine physical beauty. Where some prefer full-figured individuals, others are inclined to lean one such as Kate Moss. One may think a craggy-looking Harrison Ford as physically appealing but not a smiling, clean-cut Matt Damon. Research has found, however, that most people, no matter the race, sex, age or gender, agree on what is beautiful. Physically attractive people have unblemished skin, facial symmetry, height for males and an hourglass figure for females. (Rhode, D., 2010) Definition of variables – getting hired Getting successful employment makes up the second variable of the hypothesis. In a study made by Forsythe, et. al., (1985), the author used the words “outcome of interviews” synonymously with getting hired when referring to the effect of attractiveness in the job market. In another study conducted by Carl Senior and Michael J.R. Butler (2007), getting hired meant offering the mock applicants job packages. As an applicant, there are many factors to consider if one wants to land the job. The perfect resume containing, in brief, the individual’s personal data, qualifications and relevant job experiences should be presented in a way that “talks” to the recruiter. The image the job aspirant gives sitting face-to-face with the interviewer may also affects the result of the job interview. Comparison & contrast of variables The first variable which is attractiveness was interpreted by researches in different ways. Some researchers meant attractiveness as the pleasantness of the face. These studies employed photographs of both attractive & unattractive people. Others mistook attractiveness with being well-groomed. In these studies, participants were asked to compare between applicants who are well-dressed and not. These interpretations of attractiveness contrast in the sense that where attractiveness in this paper meant total image of the person, others meant grooming or a specific body part, usually the face. However, the commonality among these variables is their purpose. They all meant to the so-called “beauty premium” The second variable which is getting hired was described in different ways such as interview outcomes or offers of job packages. However, it has never been mistaken for variables like higher wages, promotions or relationship with employer. Nevertheless, these variables share one thing in that they are all affected by the attractiveness of an employees or job applicant. Empirical Evidences Extensive research has been made to verify the hypothesis that handsome and pretty job applicants appeal to head hunters and human resource managers more than other job aspirants. In one study, 110 male and female student “interviewers” reviewed 12 fake resumes. The experiment showed that regardless of the mock interviewers’ sex and attractiveness the participants preferred, among others, attractive candidates over unattractive ones. (Dipboye, R., et. al., 1976) In the hiring process alone, attractiveness is an advantage if the interviewer believes it is important for the job. (Cleveland, J., et. al., 2000) Moreover, research has found that society tends to lean towards those who are good-looking. (Hosoda, M., et. al., 2003) Most people somehow perceive someone who is beautiful as the person who gets good grades, gets hired more and gets a higher pay. This is the so-called “halo effect”. (Beauty Update, n.d.) It has also been known as the ‘what is beautiful is good’ stereotype. (Shahani-Denning, C., 2003) Thus, between an average-looking applicant and a pretty or handsome one, the callback is more frequently made to the latter in the belief that he or she is more skilled and suitable for the job. Good looks in relation to employment have undeniably been the focus of many studies. In an attempt to answer the question of beauty being an advantage in society, specifically in the work force, Newsweek surveyed 202 corporate hiring managers. More than fifty percent of these managers suggested on exerting more effort in perfecting one’s appearance, comparing the same with preparing the perfect resumé. (Bennet, J., 2010) Although it is a constant reminder by professional resume writers and human resource executives not to include photos on resumes, studies have revealed that people are more favorable towards resumes of attractive job applicants. (Hatfield, E. & Sprecher, S., 1986) The results of a study conducted by Carl Senior and Michael J.R. Butler (2007) only serves to support the hypothesis that attractiveness does matter in getting hired. Employing a mock job negotiation scenario, the authors of the study had male and female interviewers look at pictures of attractive and average-looking male and female job applicants. Both sets of interviewers were to offer job packages to the applicants. The female interviewers offered more high status job packages to attractive men while average looking men got more low status job packages. For the male interviewers, however, there was no difference in the number of low or high status job packages given to the attractive looking interviewees. Another study that agrees with the hypothesis is that made by Cash, Gillen and Burns (1977) to test if attractiveness affects hiring in traditionally masculine jobs. Professional personnel consultants evaluated resumes for traditionally masculine, feminine and neutral jobs. Attractive applicants were preferred over unattractive ones. Amidst numerous studies that agree with the “beauty premium” as economists call this phenomenon, a study that disagrees with the hypothesis was conducted by Puelo (2006) where eighteen female participants were to review a packet containing a job description, a resume with picture of an attractive applicant and another resume with picture of an unattractive applicant. Participants were given a questionnaire where they assessed the applicants’ capability for the job. The experiment revealed no significant differences between resumes of the attractive and unattractive applicants. In other words, being attractive did not equate to being a better candidate for the job. This result conflicts with all previous research. Attractiveness also did not play a role for attractive women wanting a traditionally masculine job. Heilman and Saruwatari (1978) conducted a research involving forty-five college students and resumes with pictures of persons applying for one of two jobs – a traditionally male managerial job and a traditionally female non-managerial job. Participants were told that all applicants had the same qualifications. Results showed that attractiveness prevailed only for the male applicants. Participants thought attractive female applicants were too feminine for the job. All four studies mentioned were made to test the “beauty is good” theory in the hiring process. In all four studies, participants were privy to resumes with pictures of both attractive and unattractive applicants. In contrast, the last two experiments did not support the “beauty is good” belief. For the Pueblo study, the authors attributed the inconsistency to having only female participants and limiting the exposure of said participants to just a review of resumes. There were no face-to-face interviews as was done in previous research. For the Heilman & Saruwatari study, on the other hand, although the authors employed a mixed gender sample group like previous experiments, they classified the job being applied for into traditional roles unlike other research. Many believe that attractiveness does aid in acquiring job success due to several reasons other than the “what is beautiful is good” myth. The first is that people themselves think their being attractive is an asset that can continuously be exploited to bring positive results in the working environment. (Armour, S., 2005) In the customer service industry, an attractive employee can mean more return sales from pleased customers which leads to more revenue for the company. (Tarrant, D., 1997) For David’s Bridal vice-president Patti Pao, looking pleasant is important as she is a visual representation of the company. (Armour, S., 2005) In the legal profession, good-looking lawyers are able to bring in more clientele which equates to increase in profit. (Netscape, 2010) For some, looking good means gaining the respect of one’s subordinates. (Armour, S., 2005) As defined earlier in the paper, attractiveness is that innate quality that appeals to the senses of the observer. In terms of employment, an attractive person knows that because of his or her pleasing appearance, he or she has the power to hold the other person’s attention and, most often, persuade the latter to decide in his or her favor. Another reason is their high self-esteem. Psychologists claim that the confidence these attractive employees have makes their employers notice them more. (Alleyne, R., 2009) Good-looking people have been found to be “slightly more inner-directed, more assertive, more likely to see success…more confident in romantic and social situations and to possess more social skills. (Hatfield, E. & Sprecher, S., 2002).” Not all people are attractive. Good-looking people are aware of this fact. Because of this, attractive applicants walk into a room with an air of self-assurance, knowing they already have that edge. This boost in their self-esteem makes attractive people more confident, comfortable, friendlier in dealing with other people. Subsequently, this kind of attitude ushers them to landing the job, being promoted or given a high performance evaluation. Nevertheless, it may not always be that above average-looking individuals attain success in their careers. A prime example is the case of Citibank employee Debrahlee Lorenzana who claims to have been fired from her job because she was too attractive for her male bosses. Lorenzana is beautiful, tall and curvaceous, traits that allegedly caused distraction and elicited sexist remarks from her bosses and co-workers. (Gregorian, D., 2010) As tested in the Heilman & Saruwatari (1979) experiment, attractiveness does not get the job for attractive female applicants wanting a traditionally male job. In a gender-sensitive occupation or industry, the variables are not related. This may be because companies with gender-sensitive jobs believe that the opposite sex, attractive or not, may not be as capable or skilled.  Although there have been actual cases where people were asked to resign or turned down in business for not looking pleasant enough (Corbett, W., 200), there is little empirical evidence to disprove that attractiveness does aid in getting a job. More empirical evidence exists to support the hypothesis. The contrasting results mentioned earlier in this paper were attributed to either the use of a sample group unlike those employed in previous research or bias on the part of the participants. It is noted too that participants in both studies were not able to meet or interview the mock applicants in person. Studies conducted by Heilman and Saruwatari (1978) regarding attractiveness in traditionally male or female jobs and that of Puelo (2006) employing only an all-female sample group were only dependent on resumes with photographs of the applicants. As related by some personnel managers and psychologists, attractive people exude confidence which make the former trust them with the job. Without a face-to-face interview, this trait would not be apparent to the sample group. It is possible that the only reason for these two different results is the fact that in previous studies agreeing with the hypothesis, the sample group was not only able to review resumes with the applicants’ pictures but also meet these applicants in person. Managerial Implications Even though there is a study that proves otherwise, it is a known fact that attractiveness is a factor in job success. Job applicants who are easy on the eyes more often than not successfully go through the hiring process. Pretty and handsome employees get a better performance evaluation and a much bigger pay. It is common practice. Nevertheless, it should be practiced with care and not in a way that sacrifices the company’s chances of acquiring workers who are more qualified for the job. Hiring someone because of the person’s good looks is termed appearance discrimination. This should not be misinterpreted as sex or racial discrimination. Although similarly these kinds of prejudices deal with the physical aspect or the body of an individual, appearance discrimination is focused more on the aesthetic part of a person. Unlike sex discrimination, the gender does not matter. Studies to test the value of attractiveness in employment used both male and female participants. The race of a job applicant is also not an issue. According to another study, “racial minorities get points for light skin color, European facial characteristics and conventionally “white” hairstyles (Rhode, D., 2010).” Managers should be aware that this reality may have unpleasant side effects. Even though it looks like companies opting for attractive applicants is an accepted actuality, cries of appearance discrimination have abound. In a 2005 poll by the Employment Law Alliance, sixteen percent of workers claimed they were discriminated against because of their appearance. (Rhode, D., 2010) Several high-profile cases and new research on appearance discrimination has raised awareness on the issue, prompting organizations to call for legal protections. (Armour, S., 2005) There have been only a few cities in the US with regulations against appearance discrimination. Nonetheless, there have been instances where courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff such as in the Hopkins case where they cited concurrent discrimination. In the Hopkins’ case, a well-meaning partner told Hopkins to dress more like a lady and wear more make-up among others after being turned down twice to be a partner. (Konrad, A., et. al., 2006) The US Supreme Court ruled that Price-Waterhouse accounting firm where Hopkins worked was guilty of illegal sex discrimination. Albeit, the issue of appearance discrimination has yet to cause a commotion as loud as sex or racial discrimination has done, it must already be a cause for concern among managers due to the evidences and results discovered in these studies. Recommendations for future research Truly, substantial amount of studies have been conducted to test the validity of “the beauty premium.” Despite different methods and definitions of the variables, the conclusions have all been the same. Having a pretty face, a nice-looking body or being well-groomed gives the individual an easy ticket to the corporate world and all it offers. Recruiters and personnel managers have admitted to being bias towards attractive applicants, with some even ranking physical appearance higher than education in employee attributes. (Bennet, J. , 2010) Aside from this reality, this paper has indicated that job success may not always last for attractive people. Citibanker Debrahlee Lorenzana claims to have lost her job because of her attractiveness. Some employees at Borgata Casino & Spa in Atlantic City are expressing their discontent on having to keep their appearance within company policy. Borgata suspends an employee who gains more than 7 percent of their weight recorded on Feb. 21, 2005. It ultimately fires an employee if the latter fails in losing the extra pounds. (Parmley, S., 2005) Perhaps beyond understanding the advantages attractiveness can provide in the working environment, research should also be made to study any negative aftermath of the “beauty premium” phenomenon. Variables for the study can be attractiveness and happiness in the job experience or working environment. Are attractive people happy and satisfied in the corporate world? Since society is of the mindset that attractive people are more successful in the job market resentment is not far behind. This negative feeling may come from co-workers who work as hard as their attractive counterparts but are passed over in promotions and salary increases. Eventually, this kind of atmosphere may create an unproductive working environment. Tension in the workplace has always brought bad results to a company. Another reason why this kind of research should be done is to open the eyes of the public to the strains attractive employees go through because of the so-called “halo effect.” A lot is expected from these attractive individuals because society assumes their good-looking-ness comes with good grades and good interpersonal skills. Therefore, once they get the job and do not deliver, they can be subject to emotional and psychological stress. If they are hired because their appearances are a crucial part of the position, they have to work on being attractive such as the case of the ‘Borgata Babes.’ Plastic surgery is often the costly and usual avenue for this dilemma. Perfect examples of the bad results attractiveness brings to the job can be found in the world of modeling, movies and advertising. These good-looking people represent images to the public that require continuous upkeep. As such, one hears of individuals in these professions going into crazy diets and numerous surgical operations just to keep their appearances. In some instances, other personas lose their credibility and/or their contracts with the companies because they do not have “the look” anymore. Worse, there are even cases of depression and suicides. Proposed empirical study Because society appears to believe that “beauty is good” and so people who are beautiful receive preferential treatment, an empirical study entitled “Attractiveness has harmful effects in the work place” may test this belief. Two variables would be measured – attractiveness and its harmful effects. As an individual’s life is of many aspects, this particular study will focus on the working environment. Ten personnel managers from various industries will be asked to choose one attractive employee and one unattractive employee from their files. Those chosen, 10 female participants and 10 male participants, will then be asked to answer questionnaires. Fifteen yes/no questions will be answered categorized into the following: 5Q – relationship with co-workers, 5Q – bosses, 5Q – upkeep of appearance. Questions may be similar but not limited to “Is it hard to make co-workers listen to you?”, “Has a higher up asked you for a date?”, “Would you lose weight if it meant keeping your job?” The variable of attractiveness will be measured by the number of attractive employees who answered YES. The variable of harmful effects will be measured by the number of YES answers by both attractive and unattractive employees. The hypothesis will be valid if the results show a high number of YES answers by a high number of attractive employees. Conclusion It has been said everywhere - beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. In the corporate world, this can spell the difference between getting employment and wondering why a college degree with honors as stated in a professionally-written resume did not persuade the HR manager. Coming from a recruitment specialist, the job market of today opts for an Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt than an Albert Einstein. The latter’s IQ does not seem to matter. In a world filled with above-average looking people always appearing in print and TV advertisements, attractiveness has been interpreted to mean only the physical attributes that make up a person and not his overall persona. This is what the “beholders” a.k.a. personnel managers and recruiters look for in job applicants and what moves them to say “You’re hired.” Sadly, numerous studies attest to the authenticity of this occurrence. Evidence shows that attractive people do not only get the job but also get better wages and enjoy an amiable working relationship with their bosses. Furthermore, it has been noted that preference for these good-looking individuals often overshadows the credibility, skills or hard work of average-looking job hopefuls or employees. Moreover, the occurrence has aroused a call for legislature and companies to recognize this form of discrimination based on looks and act on it as what has been done with other forms of discrimination. References: Armour, S. (July 20,2005). Your appearance, good or bad, can affect the size of your paycheck. Growing research shows how you look is influential while lawsuits raise awareness. USAToday. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/business/articles/20050724.htm Alleyne, R. (May 16, 2009). Beautiful people are paid more than their counterparts “because they are worth it”. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5330812/Beautiful-people-are-paid-more-than-counterparts-because-they-are-worth-it.html Beauty. (n.d.) In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beauty Beauty Update. (n.d.) Science Netlinks. Retrieved from http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.php?DocID=299 Bennet, J. (July 19, 2010). The Beauty Advantage. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/19/the-beauty-advantage.html Cash, T.E., Gillen, B., & Burns, D.S. (1977). Sexism and beautyism in personnel consultant decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, (pp. 301-310). Cleveland, J., et. al., (2000). Attractiveness and work decisions. Women and men in organizations: sex and gender issues at work. (pp. 3- 5) New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Dipboye, R., et. al. (June 1976). Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resumé evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (3), (pp. 288-294). doi:10.1037/0021-9010.62.3.288  Facial Attractiveness. (December 1, 2010). Science: Human and the Body. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/articles/faces.shtml Forsythe, S., Drake, M., & Cox, C. (1985). Influence of Applicant’s Dress on Interviewers’ Selection Decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 374-378. Gregorian, D. (June 3, 2010). Woman says she was fired from Citibank for being too hot. The New York Post. Retrieved from http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/too_S00LEBs0JUIl9OhB6xTBVI Hatfield, E. & Sprecher, S. (1986). What is Beautiful is Good: The Myth. Mirror, mirror: the importance of looks in everyday life. (pp. 34-68) Albany: State of University New York Press. Hatfield, E. & Rapson, R.L. (2002) Physical Attractiveness. In W.E. Craighead & C. Nemeroff’s (Eds.) The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science, Vol., (pp. 1203-1205). 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, (3), (pp. 360-372). doi:10.1016/0030-5073(79)90003-5. Hosoda, M., et. al. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology. 56. (pp. 431-462). Konrad, A., et. al. (2006) Outcomes of Appearance and Obesity. Handbook of Workplace Diversity. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Nestcsape. (2010). Do Attractive People Earn More Money? Retrieved from http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/homerealestate/package.jsp?name=fte/attractivepeopleearnmore/attractivepeopleearnmore Penn State (2009, August 25). What She Sees In You: Facial Attractiveness Explained.ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090824115811.htm Puelo, R. (2006). Are Beautiful People Thought to be Better? An Example of the Relationship between Physical Attractiveness and Expectations. Journal of Undergraduate Psychological Research. Vol. 1. (pp. 35-37) Rhode, D. (May 23, 2010). Why looks are the last bastion of discrimination. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052002298.html Senior, C. & Butler, M.J., et. al. (2007) Interviewing strategies in the face of beauty: A psychophysiological investigation into the job negotiation process.  Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1118, 142-162. doi:10.1196/annals.1412.005. Shahani-Denning, C. (2003). Physical attractiveness bias in hiring: What is beautiful is good. Hofstra Horizons, (Spring), pp. 15-18. Tarrant, D. (October 16, 1997). Hiring employees at face value: Better-looking workers earn more for their companies. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from http://www.texnews.com/biz97/look101697.html Tatarkiewicz, W., et. al. (2005). History of Aesthetics. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Who knew? Good looking people get better jobs. (2007). ScienceBlog. Retrieved from http://scienceblog.com/cms/who-knew-good-looking-people-get-better-jobs-14974.html Zaidel, D. (2005). Appearance of symmetry, beauty and health in human faces. Brain and Cognition. Vol. 57. (261-263). doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.056. Read More