Advantages of Attractiveness in Employment - Essay Example

? The effect of attractiveness and gender on ratings of employability by non-professionals Background: The literature shows that attractiveness of an individual creates a bias such that attractive persons are considered better than less attractive persons in a number of situations. In particular, an attractive person is more likely to be employed, is more likely to retain a job and receive perks with time. Although there is no evidence to show that attractive people perform better at job tasks, this trend has been seem across countries and cultures. Methods: The present study tries to verify if the gender of the judge, the gender of a target and the attractiveness of that target can influence ratings of employability in the absence of other information. The judges in this study are not recruitment professionals; and are likely to show the effect of a bias as it exists without the benefit of training. Results: The data shows that attractive targets are consistently considered more employable, male judges show a bias towards attractive female targets, and female judges show a bias towards attractive male targets. Male targets benefited more from the bias as compared to female targets. Conclusions: The attractiveness bias does exist with respect to employability, and attractive persons do seem to benefit. Males seem to benefit more, possibly due to other constraints that women face regardless of their looks. People also seem to show a tendency to favour the other gender. It may help to evaluate the importance of attractiveness consciously as one means of reducing the effect of this bias. The effect of attractiveness and gender on ratings of employability by non-professionals Introduction In the last few decades, a lot of research has been conducted to understand how an individual’s looks can affect their experiences. In general, people do expect an attractive individual to do well in a number of different situations. Attractive persons are rated as better at social situations, more intelligent, better adjusted and better at relationships (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani & Longo, 1991). Although the effect is not distinct, within certain contexts (particularly that of personal and social competence), attractive persons are considered better when other information is unavailable (Eagly et al., 1991). This may be explained by the fact that attractive individuals get more opportunities for social interaction. Effect on Employability People also believe that attractive persons are more Employable – an individual’s ability to find and retain formal employment of some form, or to find new employment (Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth, 2004). Ruffle and Shtudiner (2010) found that employers were more likely to respond to CVs that contained the photo of an attractive male candidate, while CVs of women were most likely to receive a response when no photo was available. A lot of subtle factors come into play when evaluating attractiveness of an individual. Gueguen and Pascual (2011) used actual employment data to show that even a person’s name can influence decisions of employability, such that employers were more likely to retain applicants who had names that were deemed attractive. Based on data collected from actual salaries drawn by professionals, Frieze, Olson and Russell (1991) have found that men who were considered attractive typically drew a higher starting salary and also earned more as they continued to work. Attractive women had no significant starting advantage, but over time, they more likely to draw higher salaries, showing that attractiveness did mediate their likelihood of bonuses and increments (Frieze, Olson & Russell, 1991). Commisso and Finkelstein (2012) have also found that participants in their study were more likely suggest that the less attractive individual be terminated if poor performance was noticed. Hosoda, Stone-Romero and Coats (2003) also conducted a meta-analysis that showed that the attractiveness bias affected a number of job related outcomes. They found that it existed in both high and low information conditions, it affected both men and women, and both professional and non-professional participants. Although the attractiveness bias has reduced in its intensity on recent years, it still seemed to have a significant impact on personnel selection. It may be noted that while attractiveness seems to affect selection, it does not define the chances for success at job-related tasks by itself, and Eagly et al. (1991) noted that additional information about ability dilutes the effects of attractiveness. Evolutionary Perspective Luxen and Van deVijver (2006) believe that an evolutionary perspective can explain the persistence of the attractiveness bias. According to them, mate selection strategies and intrasexual competition can explain a number of instances when the attractiveness bias occurs. People gravitate towards attractive members of the opposite sex (mate selection). They also showed that both professionals and college students exhibited the bias. On the other hand, attractive members of the same sex can be considered a threat, causing lower preference for same-sex candidates. Luxen and Van deVijver (2006) suggest that the age of the participants also plays a role, with older men being willing to choose younger men candidates (less competition); but older women being less likely to choose young women candidates. The present study attempted to verify whether the attractiveness of a target individual, the gender of the target and the gender of the judge can influence choices about employability when minimal information is available about the target. The following hypotheses were chosen to be tested: On the whole, attractive targets will be judged as being more employable as compared to less attractive targets. Attractive male targets will receive higher employability ratings as compared to attractive female targets. Male judges will rate attractive females higher than attractive males, while female judges will rate attractive males higher than attractive females. Method The study uses a factorial univariate design with three independent variables. The independent variables were gender of the judge (two levels – male and female), gender of the target (male and female) and attractiveness of the target (two levels – attractive and less attractive). Thus, a 2*2*2 factorial design was used. The study had one dependent variable, the employability ratings provides by the judges for the targets. Employability ratings were taken on a 10-point rating scale where a higher score indicated higher employability. Material The study utilised a set of four photos taken from Braun, Gruendl, Marberger and Scherber’s (2001) study (Appendix 1). Two pictures were male and two were female. There was one more attractive and one less attractive picture for each gender. Besides these, the study used a description of a job for an English teacher (Appendix 2) and a questionnaire that collected information about demographic variables about the participants (judges) as well as their ratings about the target on different factors. For the purpose of this experiment, ratings on employability were collected. Participants The study included data from 2022 participants who were each shown the picture of a single target. Of the participants, 1015 were female and 1007 were male. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 79 years, with a mean age of 24.5 (S.D = 8.99). Roughly, an equal number of participants of each gender were exposed to each of the four target faces. Procedure Participants were approached and asked to provide their input on who they would like to see teaching in schools. They were provided with information about the study, and if they agreed to participate, asked to fill in a consent form. After taking consent, the questionnaire was presented to them with the description of a job opening, and one of the target photos. They were then asked to rate the person shown on a few factors including how appropriate they would be for the job described. Demographic data was collected from the participants (judges). They were then thanked for their participation and provided with an explanation of the study of attribution based on attractiveness. Results The study collected data from 2072 participants, of which data on 2022 participants was used to test the hypotheses. Attractive female targets received a mean employability rating of 7.17 (S.D. =1.558) from female judges and a mean employability rating of 7.47(S.D. =1.42) from male judges. On the other hand, Less attractive females received a mean rating of 5.63 (S.D. =1.668) from female judges and a mean rating of 5.50 (S.D. =1.82) from male judges. The overall mean rating for female targets was 6.4 (S.D. =1.78) from female judges and 6.49 (S.D. =1.9) from male judges. Attractive male targets received a mean employability rating of 7.56(S.D. =1.48) from female judges and a mean rating of 7.16(S.D. =1.65) from male judges. Less attractive male targets received a mean rating of 5.93(S.D. =1.67) from female judges and a mean rating of 5.91(S.D. =1.75) from male judges. The overall mean rating for male targets by female judges was 6.75 (S.D. =1.77) and 6.53 (S.D. =1.81) by male judges. The overall ratings showed that female judges rated attractive targets a mean of 7.36 (S.D. =1.53) on employability, while male judges rated attractive targets a mean of 7.31(S.D. =1.55). Less attractive targets received a mean rating of 5.78 (S.D. =1.67) from female judges and 5.71 (S.D. =1.79) from male judges. Given the nature of the data, a three-way ANOVA was proposed to be used to analyse the trends observed. A Levene’s test was computed to verify homogeneity of variances which yielded an F value of 4.095 which was extremely significant; leading to the conclusion that the groups under consideration did not have homogenous variance. But as discussed by Weinberg & Abramowitz (2008), when the groups have a large sample size and approximately similar n sizes (as is in the present case), it is acceptable to ignore the Levene’s test. This is because Levene’s test is extremely sensitive to differences, and data from the social sciences often reflects greater heterogeneity than data from the physical sciences. The Kolomorov –Smirnoff test showed a value of 0.152 while the Shapiro-Wilks test had a value of 0.569 both of which were also found to be significant. But when the QQ plots were considered, the deviations were found to be quite close to the goodness if fit line. Thus, in light of the fact that the study had a large number of participants and the different groups had nearly the same ‘n’ values, as well as the robustness of the ANOVA, it was considered acceptable to proceed with the analyses. The ANOVA results showed that the main effect for attractiveness was significant [F (1, 2014) =481.65; p < 0.001] as was the main effect for the gender of the target [F (1, 2014) =19.068; p < 0.01]. The main effect for gender of the judge was not significant [F (1, 2014) =0.72; ns], showing that both male and female judges rated similarly for each of the four targets. The interaction effects showed that the gender of the target and attractiveness had a significant interaction [F (1, 2014) =4.69; p < 0.05] such that males were rated slightly higher than females overall, and less attractive females received the lowest ratings. The interaction of gender of the target and gender of the judge was also significant[F (1, 2014) =4.376; p < 0.05] such that male judges rated female targets higher than female judges did, while female judges rated male targets higher than male judges did. The interaction of attractiveness and gender of the judge was not significant [F (1, 2014) =0.036; ns] showing that gender of the judge did not affect overall attractiveness ratings. The interaction of all three variables was a significant one [F (1, 2014) =7.825; p < 0.01] showing that both gender of the judge and gender of the target interacted with attractiveness to influence employability ratings for any of the targets. The summary of the ANOVA statistic is presented in table 1. Table 1: Summary table for 2*2*2 ANOVA Source SS df MS F Gender of Target 19.068 1 19.068 7.146 Attractiveness 1285.161 1 1285.161 481.655 Gender of Judge 1.921 1 1.921 .720 Gender of Target * Attractiveness 12.514 1 12.514 4.690 Gender of Target * gender of Judge 11.677 1 11.677 4.376 Attractiveness * gender of Judge .096 1 .096 .036 Gender of Target * Attractiveness* gender of Judge 20.878 1 20.878 7.825 Error 5373.790 2014 2.668 Discussion The results show that all the hypotheses presented have been verified by the data. Across all groups, attractive targets received higher employability ratings from both male and female judges. This is consistent with pervious research by Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth (2004) and Ruffle and Shtudiner, (2010). This effect was the most pronounced in the data, and goes to show that people consider attractive individual more competent as suggested by Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani and Longo (1991). It may be noted that since each participant was exposed to only one target, there is little chance of social desirability affecting the scores. This is because when rating, the judge was unaware of the other targets; and thus could not be tempted to give ‘appropriate’ results. Attractive male targets showed an added advantage over female targets, although this effect was not as pronounced. Work by Frieze, Olson and Russell (1991) demonstrates this trend. In the present case, a judge being unaware of the other targets may have moderated this effect, as could the job description used. Teaching - particularly language is traditionally considered an acceptable job for women; and thus, it is likely that different results would be seen with different descriptions. Overall, male judges did show leniency towards female targets, while female judges seemed to favour male targets as suggested by Luxen and Van deVijver (2006). While this was a low contact condition (the judge had no opportunity to actually meet the target at any point), the mate selection effect was nevertheless visible in the data. It is possible that in a high contact condition, this effect would be more dominant. Thus, the attractiveness bias does seem to affect the extent to which a person is considered employable. Research by Hosoda, Stone-Romero and Coats (2003) states that such biases are seen across groups, and that while they have reduced in the past few years (possibly due to awareness about the phenomenon), they still continue to affect decisions. It may be noted that the judges were provided with no information about the targets besides their photos; and thus, these results may not mimic real world conditions. In the real world, a potential employer would have access to information about the person’s qualifications, experiences and other job-relevant information, which would possibly mediate the effect of the attractiveness bias. Thus, these results may be taken as evidence to demonstrate the presence of the bias; but may not be considered of real world conditions. Conclusion The study shows that attractiveness and gender of the target affect ratings of employability, and that these factors interact with the gender of the judge to provide attractive opposite gender targets with an added advantage. This advantage is particularly pronounced in the case of men. These results suggest that when other relevant information is not available, people will use information about physical or other forms of attractiveness. References Braun, C., Gruendl, M., Marberger, C. & Scherber, C. (2001). Beautycheck - Ursachen und Folgen von Attraktivitaet. Report. [pdf-document]. Available from: http://www.beautycheck.de/english/bericht/bericht.htm Commisso, M. & Finkelstein, L. (2012). Physical attractiveness bias in employee termination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2968–2987. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00970.x Eagly, A. H., Ashmore. R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but... : A metaanalytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128. Frieze, I. H., Olson, J. E. & Russell, J. (1991). Attractiveness and income for men and women in management. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1039–1057. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00458.x Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 14–38. Gueguen, N. & Pascual, A. (2011). Are people with attractive names more employable? An evaluation in a field setting. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 38, 164-166. Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E. F. & Coats, G. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56, 431–462. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00157.x Luxen, M. F. & Van De Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Facial attractiveness, sexual selection, and personnel selection: when evolved preferences matter. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 241-255. DOI: I0.1002/job.357 Ruffle, B. & Shtudiner, Z. (2010). Are good-looking people more employable? Discussion Paper No. 10-06. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Weinberg, S. L. & Abramowitz, S. K. (2008). Statistics Using SPSS: An Integrative Approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Appendix 1: Target faces Appendix 2: Job Description English Teacher Required for Liverpool School   Recruiter: Hope High Salary: ?18,000 to ?38,000 per year Location: Liverpool- City Centre Descriptor: English teacher. An English vacancy has recently become available within the English department at a great secondary school located in Liverpool. This position has the potential to become a permanent teaching position from January 2007 in this well established English department with a friendly and supportive Head of English. The post would suit a hard working and dependable teacher with great management and organisational skills. Good subject knowledge is essential, and the candidate should enjoy working with children from a diverse background.   Please read this job advert. Read More