How Does Prejudice Impact on the Interview Process - Literature review Example

How does prejudice impact on the interview process? Name: Institution Literature Review Introduction Prejudice refers to a form of attitudinal bias towards someone or something based on the visible and distinguishable characteristics. Prejudice is almost analogous to discrimination since the two are interrelated. It is a form of prejudgment (Benschop, 2001). According to Tilcsik (2010), prejudice is often used to refer to a range of negative attitudes towards certain members or groups of persons. On the other hand, discrimination depicts the disproportionate treatment based on group membership (Parens, 2012). The key assumption of this literature review is that prejudice on the part of the interviewer can influence the outcome of interview process as it increases or reduces the chances of selecting a candidate for a position. Current and past studies have examined the correlation between different forms of prejudice and their impacts on the interview process (Harrison & Thomas, 2009; Hunter, 2002; Pedulla 2012; Wolkinson 1994; Deprez-sims and Morris, 2010). Harrison and Thomas (2009) explained that while hundreds of candidates go through interviews each day, several factors determine the outcome of the interviews, among them being the interviewer’s attitudinal bias or tendency to prejudge the interviewee. According to Moon (1997), the three sources of prejudices that have impact on interview outcomes include legacy effects, communication proficiency and perceived physical attractiveness. In this respect, while an individual may be the most qualified, he may not be selected because of physical and racial prejudice (Turkey, Küskü & Ataman, 2011). Wolkinson (1994) found that the outcome of the interview was indeed influenced by several individual factors such as prejudice. According to Parens (2012), such prejudice is caused to certain attachments. The researcher explained that attachment has a direct bearing on prejudice development. Two attachment factors were identified which predisposed individuals to feel prejudiced against each other. Parens (2012) however suggested that this kind of prejudice is benign and not harmful although it can transform to accumulated hate and hostility. Basing on Wolkinson’s (1994) remarks, the actual attitudes, perceptions and behaviour depend on the context and how they are interpreted and perceived. Prejudice and racism can affect the outcome of individuals in various ways, including employment, education, healthcare and housing. Frautschy and Sweeney (2007) demonstrated that the mechanism through which discrimination restricts employment opportunities has historically affected the minority groups. A number of studies that examined discrimination suggested attractiveness and racial phenotypes as a single variable that may increase an individual’s chances of being selected for a position during an interview process (Harrison & Thomas, 2009; Hunter, 2002; Pedulla 2012; Wolkinson 1994; Deprez-sims and Morris, 2010). In a study that examined the employment interview satisfaction in Turkey, Küskü and Ataman (2011) noted that racial phenotypes impacted the interviewer and the interviewee’s satisfaction, both of which increased the likelihood of being selected or dropped during an interview. Cross-sectional studies that explored prejudice impact on interview process established that interviewer prejudices, such as racial phenotype, qualifications and attractiveness impact the outcome of interview process (Harrison & Thomas, 2009; Hunter, 2002; Pedulla 2012; Wolkinson 1994; Deprez-sims and Morris, 2010). Recent findings suggest that people with darker skin colour are more likely to be considered as incompetent (Harrison & Thomas, 2009). Other related studies have concluded that attractiveness influences the decision of interviewers in choosing a candidate. According to Frautschy and Sweeney (2007), individuals with impressive credentials are more likely to be selected during an interview. Early studies emphasised the role of attractiveness on “what is good theory”, which postulates that attractive people are most likely to be selected during an interview as they are considered to have positive attributes (Stone, n.d). Another research by Chaiken (1979) found supporting evidence for the theory. The researcher concluded that attractive individuals influence the interview in their favour as they are perceived be more successful, sociable and happier. Recent study by Stone (n.d.) however found that attractiveness only serves to influence the assessor in selecting the candidate when the candidate is of the opposite sex. Stone (n.d.) cited findings by Senior et al. (2007), which established that female interviewers were more likely to select attractive male candidates for higher status job packages than attractive females or average-looking males. Despite such convincing evidence, some researchers came up with contradictory theories when it comes to prejudice impact on interview process based on gender factors. According to Stone (n.d.), when an individual being interviewed is of same gender as the interviewer, attractiveness can be devastating. Harrison and Thomas (2009) made similar findings when they found small impact of facial attractiveness on the interviewer’s decision in selecting candidate. The researchers concluded that attractiveness is considered in selection process, it is not a dominant factor in determining the outcome of the interview in a pre-selective recruitment. Lumb, Homer and Amy (2010) made similar conclusions when they remarked that while research evidence point to a positive correlation between perceived capability and attractiveness, several strong social implications exist, suggesting that prejudice towards facial attractiveness and gender have different impacts on the interview process. Survey of research literature also shows that racial prejudice impacts the interview process. Despite existence of extensive research on racial discrimination, previous researches on the link between racial phenotype and success of being selected for position during an interview exist. A study by Hunter (2002) explored the success of selection of women with lighter and darker skin and concluded that those of lighter skin were more likely to be selected, as they were considered to have higher income earnings, spousal status and educational level. The studies suggested the significance of skin colour in successful interview. Pedulla (2012) pointed out that while racial discrimination in the Boston and Chicago labour markets established that white applicants were favoured during interviews than the Blacks. According to Pedulla (2012), white candidates were twice as likely to receive positive feedback from the interviews compared to the black applicants. Harrison and Thomas (2009) pointed to the fact that successful interview processes is strongly linked to skin colour and family background. The researchers demonstrated the impacts of racial phenotype prejudice by evidencing preferential treatment of those with lighter skin over the dark-skinned in the job-selection process. Harrison and Thomas (2009) also showed negative correlation between perceived competence and darker phenotypes and concluded that the dark-skinned Blacks were less likely to positively impact the interview process. Related studies were conducted by Pedulla (2012), who established that negative prejudices against African Americans, gay men and women were correlated to unequal outcomes across institutional contexts such as education. Key indications from survey of literature provided counter-stereotypical information that could reduce bias and discrimination (Harrison & Thomas, 2009; Hunter, 2002; Pedulla 2012; Wolkinson 1994; Deprez-sims and Morris, 2010). Pedulla (2012) posited that prejudice can play a critical role in shaping behaviours and attitudes. Relative to Harrison and Thomas’ (2009) study, Wolkinson (1994) investigated the recruitment and selection of employees in Israel and established that the interview process in the country is vulnerable to prejudice, just like other employers in the rest of the world. According to Wolkinson (1994), although Israeli employers rely on extensive range of mechanism to select candidates during the interview process, human factors such as prejudice was an underlying factor in the selection process. Among the key prejudices is racial and ethnic. Wolkinson (1994) elaborated that despite the fact that Israeli legal system allowed employers to apply recruitment and selection criteria, which appeared to be neutral, they have discriminatory impacts on Arab workers. The interview criteria indicated significant detrimental impact on Arab hiring rates. Prejudice against Israeli Arab workers made them to be less likely to be successful in the interviews. Wolkinson’s (1994) findings relate to a study by Desbiens and Vidaillet (2010) that examined the prejudices in the selection process of international medical graduates in the U.S. residency programme. Background available evidence showed that international medical graduates improved the availability of United States healthcare as well as maintained medical standards. Results from the study indicated that there was prejudice against the international students during the selection process, despite sufficient evidence that supported action against prejudices in the selection process. While international students were not likely to succeed in the selection process, the U.S. students were likely to be favoured. This indicates that prejudice against international students negatively impacted the interview process. Deprez-sims and Morris (2010) investigated the impact of prejudice towards accent on the outcome of the interview and established a correlation. The investigators found that as the workplace became increasingly globalised, employees were more likely to select individuals from other countries whose accents depicted them to be different from the local workforce. According to Deprez-sims and Morris (2010), prejudice towards accent had similar impact on interviews in the same way as skin colour, gender, age and ethnicity, as it is a source of discrimination during the interview process. In regards to age, as a factor triggering prejudice in job recruitment, a study by Wilson, Parker and Kan (2007) indicated that contrary to indications that older workers are likely to fail in the interview process, managers tend to act rationally by ignoring older workers in their hiring process. The investigators explained that advancing age can limit access to employment due to prejudices on the part of interviewers. In taking a different perspective on how prejudice impacts the interview process, Forstenlechner and Al-Waqfi (2010) explored the impact of religious prejudice. The researchers investigated workplace discrimination within the context of immigrant job applicants or candidates that resulted from being affiliated to a particular religion. Findings from the study indicated that Muslim immigrants encountered treatment during interviews that could be referred to as discriminatory. Forstenlechner and Al-Waqfi (2010) also asserted that it is likely that both religion and race or skin phenotype influenced negatively the outcome of interviews. Perceived workplace discrimination against Muslims of Arab descent made them unlikely to be selected in an interview. Consistent with these findings, Benschop (2001) examined pride and prejudice in relations to diversity and performance at workplace. Findings indicated that any organisational strategy to manage diversity is vulnerable to prejudice. According to Benschop (2001), diversity impacts the functioning of various diverse groups within the organisation due to the tendency to favour certain groups because of ethnic or racial prejudices. Few studies have examined the impact of bias towards certain sexual orientations on interview process. A landmark study by Tilcsik (2010) presented the first-ever large-scale study of discrimination against openly gay men during interview processes. Tilcsik (2010) made two major findings. First, significant prejudice against openly gay men existed in the job selection process. Second, employers who stressed the significance of stereotypically male heterosexual traits for the most part are likely to be prejudiced against gay men who were open about their sexual orientation. In all, the prejudice affected the interview process, as openly gay men were unlikely to be selected for a position during the interview process (Tilcsik, 2010). A field experimental research by Pedulla (2012) on the impacts of racial and sexual prejudice established compelling evidence on the persistence of sexual orientation prejudice in the United States labour market. Finkelstein, Frautschy and Sweeney (2007) investigated the prejudice against overweight candidates and the impacts on job interviews based on work-related rating after video-taped mock interviews. The researchers found that candidate weight played a significant factor on the interview process. The findings indicated that overweight candidates were likely to be dropped during interviews due to prejudice against overweight applicants. Finkelstein, Frautschy and Sweeney (2007) also investigated the impacts of prejudice due to race and job qualifications, adaptability and interpersonal skills and concluded that they had similar impacts on the interview process. Conclusion Prejudice is an attitudinal bias as well as a means of prejudging someone or something based on some distinguishable characteristics. The three sources of prejudices that have impacts on interview outcomes include legacy effects, communication proficiency and perceived physical attractiveness. Cross-sectional studies that explored prejudice impact on interview process established that interviewer prejudices such as racial phenotype, qualifications and attractiveness impact the outcome of interview process. Other related studies have concluded that attractiveness and impressive credentials influences the decision of interviewers in choosing a candidate. Other prejudices that impact interview process negatively include skin colour, sexual orientation and gender. Recent studies also identified accent, overweight and religion as the three additional factors. References Benschop, Y. (2001). Pride, prejudice and performance: relations between HRM, diversity and performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(7), 1166-1181 Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator Physical Attractiveness and Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1387-1397. Deprez-sims, A. & Morris, S. (2010). Accents in the workplace: Their effects during a job interview. International Journal of Psychology, 45(6), 417-426 Desbiens, N. & Vidaillet, H. (2010). Discrimination against international medical graduates in the United States residency program selection process. BMC Medical Education, Jan 25, 2010, Vol.10, p.5 Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is Beautiful is Good. Journal of Personality Social Psvchology, 24(3), 285-90. Finkelstein, L., Frautschy, R. & Sweeney, D. (2007). Bias against Overweight Job Applicants: Further Explorations of When and Why. Human Resource Management, 46(2), 203–222 Forstenlechner, I. & Al-Waqfi, M. (2010). A job interview for Mo, but none for Mohammed: Religious discrimination against immigrants in Austria and Germany. Personnel Review, 2010, 39(6), p.767-784 Harrison, M. & Thomas, K. (2009). The Hidden Prejudice in Selection: A Research Investigation on Skin Color Bias. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(1), 134-168. Küskü, F. & Ataman, B. (2011). Employment interview satisfaction of applicants within the context of a developing country: the case of Turkey. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(11), 2463-2483 Moon, M. (1997). Understanding the Impact Of Cultural Diversity On Organizations. A Research Paper Presented to the Research Department Air Command and Staff College Lumb, A., Homer, M. & Miller, A. (2010). Equity in interviews: do personal characteristics impact on admission interview scores? Medical education, 44(11), 1077-83 Parens, H. (2012). Attachment, Aggression, and the Prevention of Malignant Prejudice. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 32(2), 171-185 Pedulla, D, (2012). The Positive Consequences of Negative Stereotypes: Race, Secual Orientation and the Job Application Process. Working Paper #7, May 2012 Senior, C., Thomson, K., Badger, J., & Butler M. (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. Stone, S. (n.d.). Prejudices of the Selection Process: The Interaction of Attractiveness, Phenotype, and Qualifications in Women. Tufts University Tilcsik, A. (2010). Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), p.586-626 Wilson, M., Parker, P. & Kan, J. (2007). Age biases in employment: Impact of talent shortages and age on hiring. Business Review 9(1), 33-41 Wolkinson, B. (1994). Recruitment and selection of workers in Israel: The question of disparate impact. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 17(2), 260-281 Read More