1

The Beauty or The Beast To what extent is the applicants’ physical attractiveness

advantageous in hiring decisions?

Bachelor Thesis Organization & Strategy, 2009- 2010

Organization Behaviour

Devina Agus, 710915

Drs. Marloes Röthengatter

Number of words: 6610

2

Management summary

This bachelor thesis investigates to what extent physical attractiveness is advantageous in hiring

decisions. First of all, based on previous literature, evidence will be given that such a positive effect

exist. This positive effect is due to the fact that managers rely on the what is beautiful is good

stereotype in their judgement of job applicants. Hence, managers evaluate applicants based on

inferences from the social category (attractive versus unattractive) to dimensions of personality (e.g.

intellectual competence). Moreover, potential moderators of this physical attractiveness effect are also

identified. However, they all appear not to hold, due to lack of support or critics. Thus, it all still

comes down to what is beautiful is good. Furthermore, limitations and recommendations to this study

are given.

3

List of Contents

Management Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Problem Indication ........................................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................................ 5

1.4 Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Relevance ...................................................................................................................................... 5

1.6 Research design and data collection ............................................................................................. 6

1.7 Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Chapter 2: What is beautiful is good ................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Implicit Personality Theory .......................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Stereotype ..................................................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Physical attractiveness and hiring decisions .............................................................................. 10

2.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 11

Chapter 3: Physical attractiveness and its potential moderators ................................................... 12

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 12

3.2 The beauty is beastly effect ......................................................................................................... 12

3.3 The amount of information… ..................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Physical attractiveness as job relevant factor ............................................................................. 13

3.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 14

Chapter 4: The strength of the potential moderators .................................................................... 15

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 15

4.2 The beauty is beastly effect ......................................................................................................... 15

4.3 The amount of information… ..................................................................................................... 16

4.4 Physical attractiveness as job relevant factor ............................................................................. 16

4.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 17

Chapter 5: Conclusion, limitations and recommendations ............................................................ 18

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 18

5.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 18

5.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 19

5.4 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 19

References ........................................................................................................................................... 21

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

In this chapter, a problem is indicated based on previous researches. After, the problem statement,

which results from the problem indicated is given. Then, research questions which are related to the

problem statement are identified. In section 1.5 the academic and managerial relevance of this thesis is

discussed. How the research is designed and the method of data collection is explained in section 1.6.

The final section of this chapter gives the structure of this bachelor thesis.

1.2 Problem Indication

According to Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972) attractive people are perceived to be happier than

the unattractive ones. Also the first are expected to be occupationally more successful than the latter.

That is, they are more likely to be hired (Dipboye, Fromkin, &Wiback, 1975; Dipboye, Arvey, &

Terpstra, 1977; Gilmore, Beehr, & Love, 1986; Shahani-Denning, 2003; Watkins & Johnston, 2000),

even if their quality of application is lower than the unattractive job applicants (Watkins & Johnston,

2000). From these studies, it can be concluded that employment managers favour attractive over

unattractive applicants on grounds of physical attractiveness1. Obviously, this is an advantage for

attractive job applicants. However, there are studies which show factors that moderate this advantage

(Cash, Gillen, & Burns, 1977; Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979; Marvelle & Green, 1980, Eagly, Ashmore,

Makhijani, Longo, 1991).

Despite these abundant studies regarding the effect of applicants‟ attractiveness on hiring decisions,

only a few attempt to explain this effect. Remarkable is that each of these studies (Eagly et al., 1991;

Hosoda, Stone- Romero, Coats, 2003; Jackson, Hunter, Hodge, 1995) use different theories to explain

the attractiveness effect, however all three of them use the implicit personality theory. This is not

surprising, since this theory can predict the relationship between attractiveness and job-related

outcomes. On top of that, the theory can also help to identify potential moderators2 of this

attractiveness effect (Hosoda et al., 2003).

It must be noted though that each of these studies applies the theory differently. This in turn results in

different explanations of the physical attractiveness effect. Hence, the information regarding this effect

is scattered and it is still unclear how physical attractiveness can affect hiring decisions. Since this is

the case, this thesis provides an overview of previous studies which attempt to explain the physical

attractiveness effect with the use of implicit personality theory. It is expected that this overview,

1 Throughout this study this type of attractiveness is meant.

2 Throughout this study, potential moderators are meant, when moderators are mentioned.

5

combined with new insights and application of other theories related to this topic, will give a better

managerial and academic understanding of the physical attractiveness effect on hiring decisions.

1.3 Problem statement

In accordance with the problem indicated above, the following is the problem statement:

To what extent is the applicants’ physical attractiveness advantageous in hiring decisions?

1.4 Research Questions

The problem statement is split into more specific research questions in order to provide a solution to

the problem. These research questions are answered in the subsequent chapters:

Why is the applicants’ physical attractiveness an advantage in hiring decisions?

To explain this advantage, the implicit personality theory is used. The definition of the

implicit personality theory is also given here.

What are the potential moderators of this physical attractiveness effect?

Here the potential moderators that weaken or strengthen the physical attractiveness effect

are investigated.

Are the potential moderators valid?

The strength of the potential moderators is examined here.

After answering the three research questions above, the extent of the physical

attractiveness effect is measured. Hence, the following is the final research question,

which is also the problem statement:

To what extent is the applicants’ physical attractiveness advantageous in hiring

decisions?

1.5 Relevance

As indicated, there are many studies which conclude that physical attractiveness influences hiring

decisions positively (Dipboye et al., 1975; Dipboye et al., 1977; Gilmore et al., 1986; Shahani-

Denning, 2003; Watkins & Johnston, 2000). However, there are other studies which prove the

6

opposite (Cash et al., 1977; Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979; Marvelle & Green, 1980). Since these

findings are contradictory, it is interesting to investigate the actual effect of the applicants‟ physical

attractiveness on hiring decisions. Hopefully, the result of this thesis can help managers to become

more aware of this attractiveness effect and in turn prevent them from making biased hiring decisions.

In order to make the managers become more aware of the attractiveness effect, it is assumed that an

explanation of how this effect works must be given. Unfortunately, there are just a few studies

regarding the explanation of this effect (Hosoda et al., 2003; Eagly et al., 1991; Jackson et al., 1995),

however they all use the implicit personality theory as explanation. This theory helps the managers

understand how it is possible that they feel attracted to pretty or handsome applicants (Hosoda et al.,

2003; Eagly et al., 1991; Jackson et al., 1995). Therefore, it is anticipated that the next time when they

are about to hire an attractive individual, they will become more aware of this effect and they will

think twice before they make (biased) decisions. This reasoning will prevent them from hiring

attractive, but of mediocre quality applicants instead of hiring unattractive high quality applicants

(Watkins & Johnston, 2000).

1.6 Research design and data collection

Due to the fact that this study is a bachelor thesis, the common method used is a literature review,

which is a “documentation of a comprehensive review of published work from secondary sources of

data in the areas of specific interest of the researcher” (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010, p. 440). This thesis

can also be considered as a descriptive research, due to the fact that this study is “undertaken in order

to ascertain and be able to describe the characteristics of the variables of interest in a situation”

(Sekaran & Bougie, 2010, p. 105). That is, this study describes the contingencies of the applicants‟

physical attractiveness effect on hiring decisions.

For this thesis secondary sources of data are used, particularly articles in journals. On top of that,

books are also used as references. These data can be found in the University of Tilburg‟s journal

articles databases and books catalogue respectively. The advantage of the UVT‟s search engine is the

access to full text articles. Moreover, it is possible to search for articles simultaneously in all

databases. Obviously, this is more efficient than to search subsequently in each of the databases.

A disadvantage is the unavailability of book summary or previews. Therefore it is hard to determine

whether the book is relevant or not, for a book‟s title often do not suffice to judge the relevance.

Inevitably, there is a possibility that the relevant book is not on the shelves. To solve this, Google

search engine is used, particularly Google Books and Google Scholar. Google books is used to find

summaries and/or previews of the relevant books. This way, it is possible to judge the relevance of the

books or use particular information which is available as a preview. On top of the UVT ‟databases,

7

Google Scholar is used to find relevant articles. The advantage is that cross reference is available,

which can be useful for the research. The disadvantage of using Google Scholar is the limited access

to full text articles. Overall, keywords such as physical attractiveness, physical attractiveness of

applicants, implicit personality theory, stereotypes and job selection are used to find the relevant

books and articles.

To ensure the quality of the articles, quality journals are used. A list of quality journals can be found

on the Blackboard Learning System of Tilburg University. Furthermore, journal citation reports

available on ISI Web of Knowledge are used to determine the impact factor and thus the quality of

journals. Relevant articles are used in this thesis. Later publications are only used when it is still

currently relevant.

1.7 Structure

In chapter 2 the positive effect of physical attractiveness on hiring decisions is explained with the use

of implicit personality theory. Then, chapter 3 identifies the potential moderators which reduce the

applicants‟ physical attractiveness effect on hiring decisions. Moreover, the strength of the moderators

is discussed in chapter 4. The final chapter concludes with the answer to the problem statement.

Furthermore it discusses the limitations of this study, that is limitations in scope or theory. Managerial

recommendations are also given in order to make managers become more aware of the effect and how

to prevent this physical attractiveness bias.

8

Chapter 2: What is beautiful is good

2.1 Introduction

In these past few decades, the effect of physical attractiveness on hiring decisions has become

apparent. More and more studies conclude that managers hire attractive applicants over unattractive

applicants (Dipboye et al., 1975; Dipboye et al., 1977; Gilmore et al., 1986; Watkins & Johnston,

2000). Less evident, is the reason behind this preference for attractive applicants. However, it must be

noted that a few studies attempt to explain this physical attractiveness effect on hiring decisions

(Hosoda et al., 2003; Eagly et al., 1991; Jackson et al., 1995) and all of them, although not in the same

way, use the implicit personality theory. Following these studies, this chapter uses the implicit

personality theory combined with other theories related to physical attractiveness to explain why

managers prefer attractive over unattractive applicants. First the implicit personality is discussed and a

definition of this theory is given. Then, the stereotype what is beautiful is good is explained by using

the implicit personality theory. At the end, the first research question is answered.

2.2 Implicit personality theory

Bruner and Tagiuri (1954) and Cronbach (1955) are the first who introduce the term implicit

personality theory. As with any other theory, there are many definitions of implicit personality theory

(e.g. Hays, 1958; Rosenberg & Sedlak, 1972; Schneider, 1973; Wegner & Vallacher, 1977).

Hays (1958) claims that each individual makes inferential judgements of others in a schematic way.

This scheme is called the implicit personality theory. It consists of a set of expected relations between

personality traits of others, which are built up through direct experience that one has with those

personality traits. Moreover, this direct experience can be both positive and negative. It is expected

that positive experience with one personality trait will result in positive anticipations of other

personality traits. However, it is expected that negative experience with one personality trait will result

in negative anticipations of other personality traits. This definition of the implicit personality theory by

Hays (1958) is supported by Schneider (1973). He defines implicit personality theory as the inferences

that people draw of others‟ personality on the base of a few central personal characteristics.

Through the years definitions of implicit personality have been modified and added. The most used

and well-known definition is that of Ashmore and Del Boca (1979)3 as cited in for example Eagly et

al. (1991), Hosoda et al. (2003) and Jackson et al. (1995). According to Ashmore and Del Boca

(1979) implicit personality theory is a hypothetical construct, consisting of a set of personal attributes

(e.g. personality traits) that each individual believes others to possess and the inferential relations

3 Throughout this study this definition of implicit personality theory (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1979) is used.

9

between these personal attributes. For instance, after knowing that someone is intelligent, it can be

inferred that this person is also kind. In this case, there is an inferential relationship between the

personal attributes intelligence and kindness. Brown (1986) states that in general, positive personal

attributes (e.g. intelligence) result in positive inferences about other personal attributes (e.g.

kindness), whereas negative personal attributes (e.g. self-centred) result in negative inferences (e.g.

inconsiderate). Furthermore, this theory is called implicit, since it exist inside someone‟s head and

most people are unaware of possessing and using this theory to make judgements of others (Ashmore

and Del Boca, 1979).

2.3 Stereotype

According to Brigham (1971) a stereotype is a generalization, categorical response, impression or

belief. It is a structured set of beliefs, since stereotypes are pictures in our heads (Lippmann, 1922).

As demonstrated by gestalt psychologist, these pictures in our heads are not just sets of beliefs, but

they are actually structured (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1979). Combining these early definitions of

stereotypes, a stereotype can be defined as “a structured set of beliefs about the personal attributes of

a group of people” (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1979, p. 4). This definition is modified further by using the

implicit personality theory. The modified definition of a stereotype is “a structured set of inferential

relations that link a social category with personal attributes” (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1979, p. 7).

This social category is perceived as one of the personal attributes and consists of a group of people

who shares the same set of characteristics (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1979).

Relating to physical attractiveness, this stereotype is called the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype

(Dion et al., 1972, p. 285). According to this stereotype (Dion et al., 1972), attractive and unattractive

individuals are evaluated differently. Indeed, people assign more socially desirable personal attributes

(e.g. personality traits) to attractive individuals than unattractive individuals. That is, compared with

the unattractive ones, attractive people are perceived to lead better lives, have better marriages, are

better parents and are more likely to have prestigious jobs. In sum, attractive individuals are expected

to have better social and occupational lives than the unattractive individuals (Dion et al., 1972).

Eagly et al. (1991) use the modified definition of stereotype (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1979, p. 7) and

claim that the what is beautiful is good stereotype can be seen as a set of inferential relations between

the social category (i.e. attractive and unattractive individuals) and personal attributes (i.e. dimensions

of personality)4. These dimensions of personality in turn have evaluative meaning. According to

Rosenberg, Nelson, and Vivekananthan (1968) there are two types of evaluative meaning: social and

4 Throughout this study, this definition of what is beautiful is good stereotype is used. Also when the term

„stereotype‟ is used, it is referring to the what is beautiful is good stereotype, if it is not mentioned otherwise.

10

intellectual competence. Interpersonal skills, personality traits concerned with sociability (e.g.

extraversion) and popularity (the outcome of these skills and traits) are the core of social competence.

On the other hand, intelligence, practical task-relevant ability and a rational mental style are at the

centre of intellectual competence. Therefore, according to the what is beautiful is good stereotype,

attractive individuals are perceived to be more socially and intellectually competent than unattractive

individuals (Jackson et al., 1995).

2.4 Physical attractiveness and hiring decisions

Raza and Carpenter (1987) claim that during job interviews, the managers‟ evaluation of the

applicants‟ intelligence, dependability, and interaction skills is influenced by whether or not the

managers like the applicants. This liking is influenced by many factors, such as physical attractiveness

(Raza & Carpenter, 1987). Individuals cannot help but assigning positive personality traits to attractive

people, this is known as the mentioned what is beautiful is good stereotype (Dion et al., 1972).

The meaning of this stereotype has been modified by Eagly et al. (1991) by using the implicit

personality theory. That is, the managers evaluate applicants by making inferences from the social

category (attractive versus unattractive) to dimensions of personality (e.g. intellectual competence).

In this case, it is inferred that the more attractive an applicant, the more intelligent he or she is

(Jackson et al., 1995). Furthermore, this assessment of the applicants‟ dimension of personality is

obvious, since it is the main objective of conducting a job interview (White, 1993).

Individuals often rely on this what is beautiful is good stereotype, since it offers them the easy way

out. That is, people use stereotypes as heuristics to judge others in order to simplify complex tasks

(Tajfel, 1981). Indeed, it has been argued that stereotypes largely affect people‟s judgements of others,

when the task is complex. On the contrary, one‟s judgement of another person remains unaffected by

stereotypes, when the task is simple (Bodenhausen & Lichtenstein, 1987). Obviously, hiring an

applicant is not a simple task. To successfully complete this task and to determine whether the

applicant is suitable or not for the job, it is expected that the managers take into account many job

relevant factors. Among those factors are the applicant‟s interaction skills, dependability and

intelligence (Raza & Carpenter, 1987). This task is far more complex compared to a simple task where

only one‟s personality trait need to be identified (Bodenhausen & Lichtenstein, 1987). An example of

this simple task could be the managers‟ evaluation of the applicant‟s interpersonal skills.

Hence, for such a complex task as personnel selection, it is anticipated that the managers rely on the

what is beautiful is good stereotype in order to make their hiring decisions.

More precisely, this stereotype works as follow. The managers observe attractive applicants, who

belong to the social category „attractive‟. This membership of a social category can be seen as a

11

personal attribute. Since the implicit personality theory is a web of inferential relations between

personal attributes, from this managers infer that the applicants possess another additional attribute, in

this case intellectual competence. This inference to particularly the applicants‟ intellectual competence

is not surprising. Intelligence evaluation is after all the most effective and profitable tool in personnel

selection (Hunter & Hunter, 1984). It is effective for its power to predict work performance. That is

the more intelligent the applicants, the better their work performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984).

Moreover, this intelligence evaluation is effective even if the applicants still need to learn job-related

skills. This is due to the fact that intelligence predicts learning abilities consistently (Schmidt &

Hunter, 1998).

Furthermore, managers can extend their judgement by making more inferences (Ashmore & Del Boca,

1979). That is, managers can also infer from the applicants‟ possession of intellectual competence that

they have yet another personal attribute, e.g. interpersonal skills. These inferences continue, until

managers have formed their final inferential judgement. Then, the managers decide whether or not the

applicants are suitable for the job and thus hired.

2.5 Conclusion

In sum, physical attractiveness is clearly advantageous for attractive job applicants (Dipboye et al.,

1975; Dipboye et al., 1977; Gilmore et al., 1986; Watkins & Johnston, 2000). The reason for this

positive effect of attractiveness is the fact that managers cannot escape from the what is beautiful is

good stereotype. They rely on this stereotype since stereotypes are used as heuristics to judge others

when a complex task is present (Tajfel, 1981). Personnel selection is assumed to be a complex task.

According to Eagly et al. (1991) this stereotyping leads managers to evaluate applicants by making

inferences from the social category (attractive versus unattractive) to dimensions of personality (e.g.

intellectual competence). This inference to particularly the applicants‟ intellectual competence is not

surprising, since intelligence evaluation is effective in predicting work performance of the applicants.

Indeed, the higher the level of intelligence, the better the work performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984).

Obviously, managers are more willing to hire attractive applicants, who are inferred to be productive

applicants.

12

Chapter 3: Physical attractiveness and its potential moderators

3.1 Introduction

The previous chapter explains why the applicants‟ physical attractiveness affects the managers‟ hiring

decisions positively. Nevertheless, the extent of this physical attractiveness effect is still a discussion

(Cash et al., 1977; Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979; Hosoda et al., 2003; Marvelle & Green, 1980).

Therefore, this chapter gives the answer to the second research question by identifying the potential

moderators to this effect.

3.2 The beauty is beastly effect

Cash et al. (1977) conclude that attractive applicants are more qualified for a job than unattractive

applicants. However, this is dependent on the sex of the applicants and the type of job (Heilman &

Saruwatari, 1979). That is, in masculine jobs (e.g. managerial jobs), unattractive female applicants are

perceived to be more qualified and more likely to be hired than attractive female applicants. On the

other hand, in feminine jobs (e.g. clerical jobs), attractive female applicants are more favoured than

unattractive female applicants. It has to be noted that in general, masculine jobs are mostly

occupations dominated by males and feminine jobs are mostly those occupations which are dominated

by females (Cash et al., 1977). In this thesis however, only the managerial and the clerical jobs are

mentioned as examples of masculine and feminine jobs respectively. This is for the sake of simplicity

and also due to the fact that researchers often use these two types of jobs in their study of the physical

attractiveness effect (e.g. Heilman and Saruwatari, 1979).

To explain this perception, the lack of fit model is proposed. According to Heilman (1983), this model

claims that personnel managers make inferences about personal attributes (e.g. personality traits) of

the applicants, based on sex stereotypes. After assessing the applicants‟ personal attributes, the degree

to which these attributes match the job requirements is measured. Then a fit is established if there is a

match between the personal attributes of the applicants and the job requirements.

Sex stereotypes are “the structured sets of inferential relations that link personal attributes

to the social categories female and male” (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1979, p. 6). To be exact, „soft‟

feminine attributes such as submissive, naïve and wavering are assigned to women. In contrast, „hard‟

masculine attributes like critical, discriminating and dominating are linked to men (Johnson, 1967).

This sex stereotyping is exaggerated when attractiveness is evident (Gillen, 1981; Heilman &

Saruwatari, 1979; Heilman & Stopeck, 1985a). Indeed, attractive female applicants are perceived to

13

have more feminine attributes than unattractive female applicants (Gillen, 1981). Since stereotypically

masculine attributes seem to be required to succeed in masculine jobs, attractive women, who are

perceived to have more feminine traits, are judge to be less qualified and less likely to be hired for

masculine jobs than unattractive women, who have less feminine traits (Hosoda et al., 2003).

In terms of Heilman‟s model (1983), there is a lack of fit between the applicants‟ personal attributes

(i.e. feminine) and the job requirement (i.e. masculine). This negative effect of physical attractiveness

on attractive female applicants is called the beauty is beastly effect (Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979).

Similarly, attractive male applicants are perceived to possess more masculine attributes, whereas

unattractive male applicants are perceived to possess less. However, in general, the lack of fit model

does not result in a disadvantage for attractive men like it does for attractive women. This is due to the

fact that attractive men are perceived to be successful in both masculine and feminine jobs (Heilman &

Saruwatari, 1979; Heilman & Stopeck, 1985a). Thus, even though attractive men are perceived to have

less feminine traits than their unattractive counterparts, they are perceived to be as successful as the

women in feminine jobs (Feldman-Sumners & Kiesler, 1974).

3.3 The amount of information

Another moderator of the physical attractiveness effect is the amount of information about the

applicants. Managers are more likely to strongly rely on the what is beautiful is good stereotype, if the

information provided is limited (Locksley, Borgida, Brekke, & Hepburn, 1980; Locksley, Hepburn, &

Ortiz, 1982). However, the effect of this stereotype decreases as the amount of information of job

applicants increases (Eagly et al., 1991). This is consistent with the integration model of social

judgement by Anderson (1981), which claims that the importance of a particular information is

dependent on the total amount of information needed to be taken into account. That is, the more

information there is available about the applicants, the more information the managers need to take

into account and the less important a particular information (i.e. physical attractiveness) will be as a

determinant of the hiring decisions.

3.4 Physical attractiveness as a job relevant factor

Whether attractiveness is an asset or a liability for the applicants is also dependent on its relevance in a

particular job. Weiner and Schneiderman (1974) conclude that managers strongly rely on job

relevant information of the applicants. Indeed, attractiveness can be perceived as a job relevant factor

(Beehr & Gilmore, 1982). If this is the case, then attractiveness is an advantage for the applicants. For

instance, attractiveness is seen as job relevant in sales and it influences hiring decisions positively

(Dipboye et al., 1975). This is not surprising though, since salespersons need to attract customers all

14

the time and convince them to buy the company‟s product. It is shown that customers favour attractive

over unattractive salespersons. Moreover, they react more positively to attractive rather than

unattractive salespersons and are easily persuaded by attractive salespersons (Reingen & Kernan,

1993). However, for jobs where attractiveness seems to be job irrelevant, such as jobs for scientist

who work in a laboratory, attractiveness is not considered as an asset in a specific job. If this is the

case, then attractiveness in not an advantage for the job applicants (Beehr & Gilmore, 1982).

3.5 Conclusion

The effect of physical attractiveness seems to have a limit. In this chapter three moderators that reduce

the physical attractiveness effect are identified. First, it is evident that attractiveness is not beneficial

for female applicants for masculine jobs, since the lack of fit model (Heilman, 1983) predicts that

attractive female applicants are perceived to possess feminine attributes which does not produce a fit

with the job requirement of masculine jobs (i.e. masculine attributes). On the other hand, attractiveness

is always beneficial for male applicants, since they are not affected by the lack of fit model. That is,

they are perceived to be successful in either masculine or feminine jobs. Second, the amount of

explicit information available regarding the applicants weakens the physical attractiveness effect on

hiring decisions (Eagly et al., 1991). Third, attractiveness is only beneficial to the job applicants, when

attractiveness is seen as a job relevant factor. If not, then attractiveness is not beneficial (Beehr &

Gilmore, 1982).

15

Chapter 4: The strength of the potential moderators

4.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter potential moderators to the physical attractiveness effect have been identified.

However the strength of these moderators is still a question. Hence, this chapter is going to answer the

third research question by examining the strength of these potential moderators.

4.2 The beauty is beastly effect

As mentioned before, attractive female applicants have to deal with the beauty is beastly effect.

That is, attractiveness is an advantage for attractive female applicants, only when they apply for

feminine jobs (Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979). However, there are many discussions regarding the

existence of this effect. Jackson (1992) argues that these negative findings for attractive women have

been reported by Heilman and associates only. As counter argument, Heilman and Saruwatari (1979)

claim that the beauty is beastly effect has been supported in the studies of Cash et al. (1977) and

Dipboye et al. (1977). Nevertheless, these studies are not statistically significant in order to support the

beauty is beastly effect (Podratz & Dipboye, 2002).

Indeed, many other researchers who have studied this effect fail to support this (e.g. Dipboye et al.,

1975; Drogosz & Levy, 1996; Gilmore et al., 1986; Hosoda et al., 2003; Marlowe, Schneider, &

Nelson, 1996; Shahani-Denning, 2003). Hosoda et al. (2003) report that attractiveness has a positive

effect on job-related outcomes for men and women in both masculine and feminine jobs. Therefore,

they conclude that their result “afford no support for the “beauty-is-beastly” perspective: Physical

attractiveness is always an asset for individuals” (Hosoda et al., 2003, p. 451). The study of Shahani-

Denning (2003) about the effect of physical attractiveness on the hiring decisions of a marketing

position, also fail to support the beauty is beastly effect. Her study reports that physical attractiveness

influences the hiring decisions positively regardless the applicant‟s sex or sex-type of job. Both

attractive male and female applicants are better off than their unattractive counterparts.

It is speculated that this beauty is beastly effect exist due to the little amount of stimulus photographs

(Podratz & Dipboye, 2002). These photographs are shown to subjects in order to evaluate the targets

(job applicants) on their suitability for employment. In the studies that support the beauty is beastly

effect (Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979; Heilman & Stopeck, 1985a), only four stimulus photographs are

used (Podratz & Dipboye, 2002). The reliance on too little amount of stimulus photographs might

limit the ability of the researcher to generalize the result of the study (Fontenelle, Phillips, & Lane,

16

1985). Hence, it might be that the beauty is beastly effect of Heilman & Saruwatari (1979) cannot be

generalized. In contrast, Podratz and Dipboye (2002) use a large amount of photographs in their study,

namely 204 photographs. It is then assumed that this large amount of photographs is large enough to

generalize the result. Yet, they do not find any evidence to support the beauty is beastly effect.

4.3 The amount of information

The amount of information available about an applicant is one of the moderators of the physical

attractiveness effect. The more specific information there is available, the less likely it is for managers

to be influenced by the what is beautiful is good stereotype (Locksley et al., 1980; Locksley et al.,

1982). However, it has been concluded that people still rely on stereotypes in their judgement of others

when the tasks that they need to perform are complex (Bodenhausen & Lichtenstein, 1987). In this

case stereotypes are used as a strategy with the purpose of simplifying complex tasks (Tajfel, 1981).

It is postulated that judging applicants on their suitability for employment is a complex task. Indeed,

during a job interview managers need to evaluate applicants on many job related factors, such as the

applicants‟ intelligence, dependability, and interaction skills (Raza & Carpenter, 1987). This task is

more complex than for example the task to judge the interpersonal skills of the applicants. The latter

task is simpler, since you only need to assess one‟s personality trait by interpreting one‟s behaviour

(Bodenhausen & Lichtenstein, 1987). Therefore, given the complexity of personnel selection, it is

assumed that managers still rely on the what is beautiful is good stereotype, despite the availability of

specific information about the individuals they need to judge.

4.4 Physical attractiveness as a job relevant factor

Beehr and Gilmore (1982) conclude that physical attractiveness is only an advantage for the attractive

applicants, if attractiveness is perceived as a job-relevant factor. However, they also disclose that this

particular advantage is not very strong, since it explains only “six percent of the variance in hiring

decision” (Beehr & Gilmore, 1982, p. 615). Thus, it can be assumed that this moderator has little

significance. A study supports this insignificance (Morrow, McElroy, Stamper, & Wilson, 1990).

Physical attractiveness does not need to be considered as job-relevant necessarily, in order to have a

positive effect on hiring decisions. Indeed, the study concludes that even if physical attractiveness is

not considered as a job-relevant factor, it might be the determinant to select between two applicants

who have similar abilities (Morrow et al., 1990).

17

4.5 Conclusion

In sum, the potential moderators of the physical attractiveness effect do not hold. They are either not

supported by previous researches, as in the beauty is beastly effect (Dipboye et al., 1975; Drogosz &

Levy, 1996; Gilmore et al., 1986; Hosoda et al., 2003; Jackson, 1992; Marlowe et al., 1996; Podratz &

Dipboye, 2002; Shahani-Denning, 2003) or there are some discussions about the moderators, as in the

other two moderators. Indeed, due to task complexity, managers still rely on the what is beautiful is

good stereotype despite the applicants‟ additional information (Bodenhausen & Lichtenstein, 1987).

Furthermore, when faced with two both eligible applicants, physical attractiveness is still the

determinant in personnel selection. Even if attractiveness is not job-relevant (Morrow et al., 1990).

18

Chapter 5: Conclusion, Limitations and Recommendations

5.1 Introduction

The last chapter concludes this thesis by giving a final answer to the problem statement:

„To what extent is the applicants’ physical attractiveness advantageous in hiring decisions?’

Limitations to this study and recommendations for future research are also given.

5.2 Conclusion

This study starts with the indication that physical attractiveness has a positive effect on hiring

decisions and other job-related outcomes (Dipboye et al., 1975; Dipboye et al., 1977; Gilmore et al.,

1986; Hosoda et al., 2003; Shahani-Denning, 2003; Watkins & Johnston, 2000). However, there are

moderators to this positive effect (Cash et al., 1977; Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979; Marvelle &

Green, 1980). The problem statement of the thesis results from this ambiguity regarding the extent of

the attractiveness advantage on hiring decisions. After conducting some literature review, an answer to

the problem statement can now be given.

Indeed, it can be concluded that physical attractiveness is always advantageous in hiring decisions.

First of all, many studies have proved this positive effect of attractiveness on hiring decisions

(Dipboye et al., 1975; Dipboye et al., 1977; Gilmore et al., 1986; Hosoda et al., 2003; Shahani-

Denning, 2003; Watkins & Johnston, 2000).

Second, managers do rely on the what is beautiful is good stereotype when faced with hiring decisions,

since it is common to use stereotypes as heuristics of judgement in complex tasks (Tajfel, 1981).

Personnel selection is then assumed to be a complex task. To be more precise, managers

stereotypically evaluate job applicants by making inferences from the social category (attractive versus

unattractive) to dimensions of personality (e.g. intellectual competence). In this case, it is inferred that

the more attractive an applicant, the more intelligent he or she is (Jackson et al., 1995).

Third of all, the moderators of the physical attractiveness do not hold. The beauty is beastly effect is

not supported by previous researches. Physical attractiveness is advantageous for both men and

women in either masculine or feminine jobs (Dipboye et al., 1975; Drogosz & Levy, 1996; Gilmore et

al., 1986; Hosoda et al., 2003; Jackson, 1992; Marlowe et al., 1996; Podratz & Dipboye, 2002;

Shahani-Denning, 2003). Moreover, as said before, managers still rely on stereotypes in their

judgement of applicants. This despite the amount of additional information available (Bodenhausen &

Lichtenstein, 1987). Furthermore, even if attractiveness is not seen as job-relevant, it is still the

19

determinant when faced with two eligible applicants (Morrow, 1990). In conclusion, it all comes

down to what is beautiful is good and the attractive applicants do benefit from this in hiring decisions.

5.3 Limitations

For this thesis the implicit personality theory is used, since it can predict the relationship between

physical attractiveness and job-related outcomes. Moreover, the theory can help identify the

moderators of this relationship (Hosoda et al., 2003). Therefore, it is the most used theory regarding

the physical attractiveness effect (e.g. Eagly et al., 1991; Hosoda et al., 2003; Jackson et al., 1995).

Nevertheless, there are other theories which can explain or predict the physical attractiveness effect on

hiring decisions. These theories are the expectancy theory and the status generalization theory

(Jackson et al., 1995). If these theories are also included in this thesis, other predictions and in turn

other conclusion might follow. However, due to the scope and time limit of this thesis, and not to

forget the popularity of the implicit personality theory, only the implicit personality theory is used

instead of all three theories.

5.4 Recommendations

Following the limitations, it might be useful for future research to incorporate the other two theories,

since it might provide better or new insights to the physical attractiveness advantage. For example the

status generalization theory predicts that “physical attractiveness effects on perception of intellectual

competence are stronger for males than for females” (Jackson et al., 1995, p. 111). This has been

supported by the study of Jackson et al. (1995). If this prediction holds in general, it can serve as a

moderator to the attractiveness effect. Unfortunately, until now only Jackson et al. (1995) and Webster

& Driskell (1983) have used status generalization theory in their studies. Therefore, it cannot be

concluded yet that there is a significant difference in the physical attractiveness effect between males

and females. Future research should study this further in order to draw a conclusion.

From a managerial perspective this thesis is not trivial. Hopefully this thesis can make the managers

more aware that such an attractiveness bias is strongly present, although unconsciously.

Moreover, managers should know by now how the physical attractiveness effect works. Therefore,

they should restrain from making hiring decisions based on stereotypic inferences. Obviously this is

hard, since humans cannot escape from the fact that they use stereotypes as heuristics in complex tasks

(Tajfel, 1981). Nevertheless, the organization can restructure the personnel selection procedure in such

a way that it can reduce stereotypic decisions.

First of all, a personnel recruiter should be assigned in the organization. This person is a specialist in

personnel recruitment and does not need to perform any tasks other than selecting and hiring new

20

employees. Thus, it is assumed that personnel selection is a relative simple task for the recruiter,

compared to a general manager who needs to take into account many other business related issues

besides personnel selection. On top of that, a personnel recruiter performs the same task on a regular

basis, which is expected to lead to more experience in this area and more task simplicity. Due to this

task simplicity, people rely less on stereotypes in their judgement of others (Tajfel, 1981). Hence, the

attractiveness bias can be reduced.

Second, job applicants‟ capability should not only be evaluated through CVs or direct encounter with

the applicants. It should be done differently. This can be done by performing an intelligence test or

other company related assessment tests. Alternatively, managers can let the applicants be intern for a

day. This way, the managers can test the applicant‟s capability on the job. Furthermore, in order to be

less subjective in hiring decision, at least two managers should be appointed. It is expected that these

actions can make managers rely less on stereotypic information in their judgement of applicants and

avoid attractiveness bias in hiring decisions. Clearly, hiring the wrong applicant who turns out to be

unqualified and unmotivated is the last thing that a manager should do.

21

References

Anderson, N.H. (1981). Integration Theory Applied to Cognitive Responses and Attitudes. In R. E.

Petty, T.M. Ostrom, & T.C. Brock (Eds.). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1979). Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory: Toward a

cognitive-social psychological conceptualization. Sex Roles, 5, 19-248.

Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1982). Applicant Attractiveness as a Perceived Job-Relevant Variable

in Selection of Management Trainees. The Academy of Management Journal, 25(3), 607-617.

Bodenhausen, G.V., & Lichtenstein, M. (1987). Social stereotypes and information-processing

strategies: The impact of task complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 871-880.

Brigham, J. C. (1971). Ethnic stereotypes. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 15-38.

Brown, R.W. (1986). Social psychology: The second edition. New York: Free Press.

Bruner, J.S., & Tagiuri, R. (1954 ). The perception of people. In G. Lindzey (Ed). Handbook of social

psychology (Vol. 2). Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Cash, T.F., Gillen, B., & Burns, D.S. (1977). Sexism and `beautyism' in personnel consultant decision

making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 301-310.

Cronbach, L.J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “ understanding of others” and “ assumed

similarity.” Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177-193.

Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is what is good. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.

Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L., & Wiback, K. (1975). Relative importance of applicant

sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 60, 39-43.

Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. ( 1977). Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and

applicant as determinants of resume evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 , 288-294.

22

Drogosz, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1996). Another look at the effects of appearance, gender,

and job type on performance-based decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(3), 437-445.

Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but...:

A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin,

110, 109-128.

Feldman-Sumners, S., & Kiesler, S. B. (1974). Those who are number two try harder: The effect of

sex on attributions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 846-855.

Fontenelle, G. A., Phillips, A. P., & Lane, D. M. (1985). Generalizing across stimuli as

well as subjects: A neglected aspect of external validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1),

101-107.

Gillen, B. (1975). Physical attractiveness as a determinant of perceived sex-role appropriateness. Paper

presented at the meeting of the South-eastern Psychological Association, Atlanta.

Gillen, B. (1981). Physical attractiveness: A determinant of two types of goodness. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 277-281.

Gilmore, D. C., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. G. (1986). Effects of applicant sex, applicant physical

attractiveness, type of rater, and type of job on interview decisions. Journal of Occupational

Psychology, 59, 103-109.

Hays, W. L. (1958). An approach to the study of trait implication and trait similarity. In R. Tagiuri,

& L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford: Stanford University

Press.

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, 360-372.

Heilman, M.E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. In B.M. Shaw, & L.L.

Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behaviour. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

23

Heilman, M. E., Stopeck, M. H. (1985a). Being attractive, advantage or disadvantage? Performance-

based evaluations and recommended personnel actions as a function of appearance, sex and job type.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 202-215.

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(2), 431.

Hunter, J., Hunter, R. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.

Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.

Jackson, L. A. (1992). Physical appearance and gender: Sociobiological and sociocultural

perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Jackson, L. A., Hunter, J. E., & Hodge, C. N. (1995). Physical Attractiveness and Intellectual

Competence: A Meta-Analytic Review. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(2), 108-122.

Johnson, S. C. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 32, 241-254.

Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgement.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 821-831.

Locksley, A., Hepburn, C., & Ortiz, V. (1982). Social stereotypes and judgement of individuals: An

instance of base- rate fallacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 23-42.

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt.

Marlowe, C. M., Schneider, S. L. & Nelson, C. E. (1996). Gender and attractiveness

biases in hiring decisions: Are more experienced managers less biased? Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81(1), 11-21.

Marvelle, K., & Green, S.K. (1980). Physical attractiveness and sex bias in hiring decisions for two

types of jobs. Journal of the National Association for Women Deans, Administrators and Counselor, 7,

3-6.

Morrow, P.C., McElroy, J. C., Stamper, B. G., & Wilson, M. A. (1990). The effects of physical

attractiveness and other demographic characteristics on promotion decisions. Journal of Management,

16, 723- 736.

24

Podratz, K., & Dipboye, R. L. (2002). In search of the “beauty is beastly” effect. Paper presented at

the annual convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto.

Raza, S. M., & Carpenter, B. N. (1987). A Model of Hiring Decisions in Real Employment

Interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 596-603.

Reingen, P. H., & Kernan, J. B. (1993). Social Perception and Interpersonal Influence: Some

Consequences of the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype in a Personal Selling Setting. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 2(1), 25-38.

Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C., & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the

structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 283-294.

Rosenberg, S., & Sedlak, A. (1972). Structural repiesentations of implicit personality theory. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel

psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological

Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.

Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 79,

294-309.

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research Method for Business. United Kingdom: John Wiley &

Sons.

Shahani-Denning, C. (2003). Physical Attractiveness Bias in Hiring: What Is Beautiful Is Good.

Journal of Personality, 14-17.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Watkins, L. M., & Johnston, L. (2000). Screening Job Applicants: The Impact of Physical

Attractiveness and Application Quality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(2), 76-

84.

25

Weiner, Y., & Schneiderman, M. L. (1974). Use of job information as a criterion in employment

decisions of interviewers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 699-704.

Webster, M. & Driskell, J. E. (1983). Beauty as Status. American Journal of Sociology, 89,

140-165.

Wegner, D. M., & Vallacher, R. R. (1977). lmplicit psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

White, C.S. (1993). Relationships between assertiveness, Machiavellianism and interviewing success

in a screening interview. Psychological Reports, 73(3), 1209-1210.