Applicant Appearance

and Selection Decision

Making: Revitalizing
Employment Interview Richard J. Ilkka
Education University of Wisconsin — Stevens Point

within the
incompatible, and almost always provocative. As a
As a topic larger corpus of materials on selection result, empirical research offers educators a rich
interviewing, applicant appearance has been addressed
through advice giving, folk wisdom, and other prescrip- opportunity to rediscover the complexity of appear-
tions. As presented, such materials tend to undermine ance as a topic within the instructional corpus of
opportunities for issue identification and assessment. selection interviewing.
Through review and interpretation of that employment Unfortunately, although a few sources review and
interview research which addresses the relationship
between applicant appearance and interviewer selection critique this research (Dipboye, 1992; Morrow, 1990),
decisions, the purpose of this paper is to encourage those there is no interpretation that facilitates use for
who teach, train, and counsel others on employment inter- those who counsel, train, or teach potential appli-
viewing to devote more studied attention to appearance cants. Put another way, many interview educators
issues and ethics. To that end, five instructional proposi-
appear to have ignored or at least underutilized this
tions are offered. Each proposition is developed through
review of related research and then capped by instructional
research. For example, many current text writers
observations. (Hamilton, 1993: O’Hair & Friedrich, 1992; Stewart &
Cash, 1994; Wilson & Goodall, 1991) selectively cite
some of the research but neither offer critical assess-
ment nor invite significant dialogue. Add the alleged
may be inappropriate, but it can be
Eavesdropping
instructive. Prior to the start of a conference folk wisdom and prescriptions of many classroom
educators, and a student as would-be-applicant may
program employment interviewing, an eavesdrop-
on
have a plethora of information and advice but com-
per heard professors lamenting the low regard
two
their respective colleagues had for interviewing as a paratively little acquaintance with research findings
or attendant issues.
course of study. Both educators felt their interview-
To the extent practiced, such an approach to this
ing courses were perceived as atheoretical, devoid of
research analysis, and lacking critical assessment, particular area of selection interviewing is instruc-
and instead, were viewed as skills-oriented activities tionally dysfunctional for several reasons. First,
based more on prescription and folk wisdom. Of exclusive attention to select variables such as dress
course, neither of the two professors believed that
and grooming encourages a myopic view of the influ-
ence of appearance on hiring decisions. Second, as
interviewing literature in general, or selection inter-
viewing literature in particular, lacked theoretical suggested, educators often codify research findings
into rules and advice rather than analyze findings in
extrapolations (Ralston & Kirkwood, 1995) or signifi-
cant research (Dipboye, 1992). Yet when applied to terms of assumptions and issues. Such codification
one suspects, many class-
invites unquestioned acceptance of various appear-
many current texts and
ance schemes (for example, the alleged influence of
rooms, the above perception may not be altogether
unfair. And as the eavesdropper reflected on what the &dquo;red power tie&dquo;). Ironically, more rigorous atten-
tion to appearance research and the issues it raises
might account for such perceptions, the topic of
applicant appearance came readily to mind. might also actually improve one’s ability to make
Applicant appearance materials, especially on strategic appearance choices consistent with one’s
&dquo;dressing for success,&dquo; are widely available in popular goals and ethics. Third, such selectivity and prescrip-
tion encourage &dquo;beautyism,&dquo; or acceptance of the idea
writings (Molloy, 1988). Such materials provide
that what is beautiful is good (Cash, Gillen, & Burns,
advice, interesting anecdotes, and, unfortunately,
minimal research citation. Conversely, empirical 1977: Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986; Wolf, 1991). And,
unlike sexism, racism, ageism, and disabilities, the
research published over the past few decades in such
areas as personnel psychology, business manage- legal or ethical implications of &dquo;beautyism&dquo; are less
ment, and communication is well grounded if not likely to be examined. Finally, taken together, such
reasons underscore a more general, fatalistic atti-
always as advisory or anecdotal. This research also
addresses a variety of appearance-related variables, tude, in effect, a kind of anti-issues based approach
to the topic; for example, everyone knows that
focusing upon alleged influence and reporting find-
ings that are sometimes equivocal,Downloaded
occasionally appearance matters, has &dquo;face validity,&dquo; so why
from bcq.sagepub.com at University of Manchester Library on May 11, 2015

11
12

bother to examine what is self-evident and unlikely (Dipboye, Fromkin, & Wiback, 1975) to pervasive
to change? In brief, and however inadvertently, if influence (Raza & Carpenter, 1987).
myopia, codification, &dquo;beautyism,&dquo; and fatalism even When considering aspects beyond facial attractive-
somewhat reflect the approach that selection inter- ness, existing empirical research has addressed body
view educators take towards the topic of appearance, types, for example, heavy versus slender (Harris,
then re-invigoration is clearly in order. Harris, & Bochner, 1982); grooming, such as jewelry
Given the above as a call for renewed instructional and hairstyles (Cash, 1985), but also including such
effort, this paper seeks to answer that call by provid- specifics as glasses (Harris et al., 1982) and cosmetics
ing five propositions that offer educators a means of (Cox & Glick, 1986). Considerable research has also
organizing and reinvigorating discussion. Each focused on dress (Forsythe, 1990), as well as more
proposition is initially developed through a review of detailed study, for example, color, value, and hue
related research and then is capped by instructional (Francis & Evans, 1988).
observations. Together, the review and suggestions Given the above, a few instructional observations
invite educators to take what is presented and follow. While time and space limit what can be cov-
develop more thorough, critical, and individually ered in classes or texts, rarely is appearance pre-
tailored approaches. sented as suggested by the above synthesis of current
research domains. Unfortunately, attention to dress
Educators Should Offer a More and grooming often dominate to the exclusion of
Comprehensive (and Critical) Definition other areas (Stewart & Cash, 1994). A more compre-
Although selection research (Dipboye, 1992) identi- hensive approach should be preferred in that it
fies several applicant behaviors before, during, and expands student awareness and invites attention to
after the selection interview that may influence assumptions, concepts, and the interrelationships
interviewer decision making, appearance is typically between and among appearance variables. Simply
cast as part of the applicant’s nonverbal communica- listing all the ways in which appearance has been
tion during the interview and can be further framed researched might be instructive for some. Moreover,
as a static nonverbal cue versus a dynamic nonverbal even minimal attention to definitions of various
cue such as eye contact or gestures (Knapp & Hall, appearance attributes might draw attention to the
1992). In turn, of all the physical qualities of an varied assumptions and biases that are otherwise
applicant, the impact of attractiveness, whether blurred in such research. For example, operational
referenced via an overall rating or specifically, an definitions of facial attractiveness are usually based
applicant’s face, is the most frequently researched on the rankings of a majority of raters which helps to

aspect of appearance. Generally, frontal face (or face preserve a kind of monolithic view of what is attrac-
and upper body) judgments of attractiveness or tive and what is not. Rather than accepting such
unattractiveness (Shahani, Dipboye, & Gehrlein, definitions, educators could encourage reflection on
1993) are made by raters, with effects often distin- how such research colors what beauty and ugliness
guished in terms of applicant sex (Heilman & may signify in a culture and specifically, in a selec-
Saruwatari, 1979). Although not considered in this tion interview. Presumably, increased attention to
paper, research discussing the relationship between questions addressing both the scope and assumptions
appearance and age and race has also been assessed that frame various notions of appearance might
(Morrow, 1990). Additionally, such judgments are encourage students to become more observant and
often done on &dquo;paper people,&dquo; and typically focus on introspective, especially as they consider the com-
those judged to be highly attractive or unattractive, plexity of appearance in relationship to their own
thereby creating a forgotten middle. future as job applicants.
The influence of attractiveness on hiring decisions
has also been studied in relationship to the mitigat- Educators Should Examine the Process
ing influence of position expectations as well as of Appearance Attribution
effect. For example, researchers have assessed the In a culture that promotes best-dressed lists, advice
influence of attractiveness on positions where attrac- on grooming, and numerous examples of what is
tiveness is job-relevant (Beer & Gilmore, 1982), considered physically attractive as well as unattrac-
where attractiveness is an occupational stereotype tive, it is not surprising when selection interviewing
(Querseshi & Kay, 1986), and where attractiveness education promotes appearance as a product to be
relates to a position type which has been sex-role- attained, yet minimizes study of the judgmental
stereotyped (Cash et al., 1977). Research on the process. While attention to product may enhance
effects of attraction on selection decisions also sug- effective impression management, allied research on
gests significant variation, from moderate influence social attraction and first impressions provides mate-
rial for examining the decision-making process or
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at University of Manchester Library on May 11, 2015
 13

just how and when such judgments of attractiveness impressions have more impact than factual informa-
are likely to occur. tion on hiring decisions (Schmitt, 1976). Farr and
York (1975) also reported that when one final rating
Attribution is to be made and when information in the interview
How attractiveness is processed is well established in sequence is equally favorable from start to finish, the
the social psychological literature. Attraction re- earlier information (primacy effect) influences the
search (Berscheid & Walster, 1974; Dion, Berscheid, final judgment about the candidate more than does
& Walster, 1972; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986) provides the information presented later (recency effect).
support for the claim that when people encounter Unfortunately, research also suggests that negative
individuals who are decidedly attractive or unattrac- first impressions have more impact than positive
tive according to widely held cultural stereotypes ones on hiring when the negative occurs early in .

(Iliffe, 1960), various attributions may be processed. interviews (Rowe, 1989: Springbett, 1958).
For example, attractive males and females are While none of the above research focuses specifi-
viewed as more sociable, friendly, competent, self- cally on physical appearance, given that about 65% of
confident, popular, and more likely to succeed, as the total messages sent in a face-to-face encounter
well as being better adjusted than people judged to are in the nonverbal band, in effect, dynamic and
be unattractive. Still another study offers support for static nonverbal cues (Knapp & Hall, 1992), it seems
the view that attractive people have greater interper- reasonable to assume that a significant number of
sonal influence (Longo & Ashmore, 1992). There is the total messages sent in the opening of an employ-
also research that supports a Pygmalion effect (Sny- ment interview would involve static nonverbal cues
der, Tanke, & Derscheicl, 1977), that is, that other such as facial structure, body size, and clothes and
observers’ expectations about both attractive and that based upon such messages, some tentative
unattractive people regarding popularity, job success, judgments occur. Extrapolating from the above
and so on, influence such people to behave in a confir- research, such initial impression formation, devel-
matory manner. oped in part from initial attributions regarding
Similar attribution processes have been observed attractiveness, might reasonably contribute to later
specifically within employment interview research. selection decision making.
At least as early as the mid 1970s, research (Dipboye In any case, while most selection educators may be
et al., 1975; Dipboye, Arvey, & Terpstra, 1977) estab- quite familiar with attribution and primacy/recency
lished a relationship between judgments of attrac- research, there appears to be little discussion of such
tiveness and favorable interviewer ratings. Research material beyond stressing the importance of first
by Cash and associates (Cash et al., 1977; Cash & impressions and the likelihood of an early, global
Kilcullen, 1985) also affirmed the positive correlation decision (for example, the first four minutes) by an
between ratings of attractiveness and favorable interviewer (Stewart & Cash, 1994). At the very
ratings of applicant personality traits. Gilmore, least, the above research should invite additional
Beehr, and Love (1986) concluded that applicant dialogue on the ethics and efficacy of appearance as
attractiveness had more influence on hiring decisions an impression-management strategy. For example,
than such factors as sex or type of rater (student or beyond the question of what to wear should be other
professional interviewers). Gilmore et al. (1986) also questions related to why and why not, as well as
found that attractive candidates were likely to be questions addressing the relative influence or lack
judged to have a more appropriate personality for the thereof. To advise a student to make a good first
job, to be expected to perform better, and to be more impression because the interview may for all intents
likely to be hired. And incidentally, once hired, physi- and purposes be over in the first four minutes may
cal attractiveness mav also have modest influence on get her attention. Yet such a comment says very little
promotion consideration (Morrow, McElroy, Stamper, about what part appearance may play in such a
& Wilson, 1990). decision, much less how and why such decisions may
or may not occur. Attention to these additional ques-

Primacy Effects tions should enrich understanding and whether

While attributions may be processed throughout an intended or not might actually improve the effective-
interview, fir st-impression research helps to under- ness of a given applicant’s subsequent impression
score their initial significance to later selection management.
decisions. For example, although research findings
are mixed (Buckley & Eder, 1988; Huegli & Tschrigi, Educators Should Explore Appearance
1975; Springbett, 1958), there is some indication that and Position Expectations
interviewers make decisions to hire early in the Prior expectations about the influence of attractive-
interview. There is also some evidence that early ness do attend to certain positions and as such pro-

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at University of Manchester Library on May 11, 2015

14

vide a filter for judgments about individual job candi- Sex-Role Stereotyping
dates. As organized in this paper, current research is Research (Cash et al., 1977; Cash & Kilcullen, 1985)
grouped into three lines of inquiry: (a) research that on the relationship between appearance and sex-role
suggests that a given candidate’s attractiveness biases supports the view that attractiveness is bene-
influences selection only when attractiveness has ficial only when applying for sex-congruent jobs.
been previously established as a job-relevant crite-
Cash et al. (1977) observed that &dquo;physical attractive-
rion, (b) research which suggests that an attractive ness affects personnel decisions to the general
appearance is influential when positively and clearly
identified as part of an occupational stereotype, and
advantage of good-looking applicants, unless they
seek jobs considered inappropriate for their sex&dquo; (p.
(c) research which suggests that an attractive 309). Heilman and Saruwatari (1979) also found that
appearance is a significant influence but only if the attractive females were less likely to get management
position applied for is also considered an &dquo;appropri- positions than unattractive ones, underscoring a bias
ate&dquo; position for the applicant’s sex.
against female managers in general and attractive
ones in particular. Fortunately, the Heilman and
Job Relevance
Saruwatari (1979) study has found little additional
At least someresearch (Beehr & Gilmore, 1982) confirmation in the literature (Dipboye, 1992).
supports the claim that physical appearance does not
Indeed, there is some research (Izraeli & Izraeli,
influence hiring decisions unless attractiveness is
1985) that argues that sex role biases are diminish-
also a job-relevant criterion, for example, a fashion
model versus an accountant. Beehr and Gilmore
ing. Of course, even if the sex role biases are dimin-
ishing, it does not mean that &dquo;beautyism&dquo; is also
(1982) also found that while attractiveness does diminishing. In effect, with more women breaking
influence hiring decisions for positions where attrac-
tiveness is job relevant, attractive people are not
through management &dquo;glass ceilings,&dquo; it may simply
mean that the &dquo;beautyism&dquo; may now begin to func-
hired only or even mainly because of their looks, tion across an even greater spectrum of jobs levels.
even for attractiveness-relevant positions.
In brief, an approach to appearance education
that, for example, examines the possible legitimacy
Occupational Stereotype of attraction as a job criterion in given employment
Even if attractiveness is not legitimately job rele-
contexts or the way in which various positions are or
vant, employers may still hold occupational stereo- have been sex-role or occupationally stereotyped,
types (&dquo;beautyism&dquo; bias) regarding certain kinds of should enrich students’ awareness of and sensitivity
positions. For example, Quereshi and Kay (1986) to the possible influence of appearance expectations
claim that the more a job requires interacting with that may function as stated or unstated prerequisites
the general public, the more that attractiveness may for positions they might consider. Equally important
influence hiring decisions. So for example, while for future applicants is additional consideration of
attractiveness may arguably not be job-relevant for a
other relevant contexts that encompass positions yet
receptionist, it is less arguable that such an occupa- through which expectations about appearance may
tional stereotype exists. Research by Croxton, Van- be developed and nurtured. For example, educators
Rensselaer, Dutton, and Ellis (1989), also shows that might consider the possible influence of corporate
attractiveness becomes a more salient criterion when culture or regional distinctions on expectations
making judgments about high-prestige, stereotypical about appearance, and subsequently, selection deci-
male jobs. Cash et al. (1977) also support the view sions.
that the strength of the attractiveness variable may
increase for upper-strata positions. Educators Should Invite Dialogue
Incidentally, occupational stereotyping may not on Alleged Effects
always be to the advantage of the attractive. For Such factors as written credentials (Rasmussen,
example, Snyder, Berscheid, and Matwychuk (1988) 1984; Ugbah & Major, 1992), verbal communication
found that physical attractiveness may not always be
influential than that appearance which fits a
(Gifford, Ng, & Wilkinson, 1985; Ugbah & Evuleocha,
more
1992), and dynamic nonverbal cues (Young & Beier,
stereotypic view of a job, for instance, a librarian. In 1977) have all been presented as being more influen-
effect, while attractive applicants, especially males tial than static nonverbal cues. Unfortunately,
(Dipboye et al., 1975) may have more of an advantage research has yet to establish a multivariate analysis
regarding influence on hiring decisions, an applicant which could confidently rank-order the relative
who &dquo;looks the part&dquo; may have an advantage for
influence of all the many variables affecting inter-
given positions over an otherwise attractive rival. viewer decision making. In any event, current
research on the variable of attractiveness suggests

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at University of Manchester Library on May 11, 2015

 15

two divergent effects characterized here as the &dquo;tie- level and objectives, students might focus upon
breaker effect&dquo; and the &dquo;domino effect.&dquo; problems of research methodology and design and/or
informally debate the relative influence of various
Tie-Breaker Effect static nonverbal cues on subsequent selection deci-
Some research (Dipboye et al., 1975; Dipboye et al., sion making.
1977) supports attractiveness as something of a tie
breaker when all else is held constant/equal. In Educators Should Assess Related
Dipboye et al., (1975), the researchers found that Appearance Variables
scholastic standing accounted for 30% of the influ- In addition to research addressing face and upper
ence on interviewer decision making. But with appli- body judgments of attractiveness, everything from
cants of equal standing, a bias existed in favor of body type to amount of cranial hair, height, dress
males and attractive candidates. Kinicki and Lock- (color, value, and hue), glasses, jewelry, and cosmet-
wood’s (1985) research also supports the observation ics has been studied in relationship to interviewer
that physical appearance may have a tie-breaking decision making. Contemporary texts which address
influence in the initial screening interview. Young the employment interview frequently focus upon
and Beier (1977) also claim that nonverbal behaviors these related variables, particularly clothing and
(dynamic cues) are more influential than attractive- grooming (Hamilton, 1993; Stewart & Cash, 1994)
ness but that attractiveness may become something but in the process encourage readers to plan strategy
of a relevant tie breaker when the dynamic nonverbal rather than examine cultural stereotypes which
behaviors of two applicants are similar. pervade them. A more critical assessment of the
assumptions undergirding such influence variables
Domino Effect seems warranted if for no other reason than to
While attractiveness may have limited but signifi- achieve a better understanding of the role of appear-
cant influence on hiring decisions, there are at least a ance in the selection-decision-making process.
few studies that argue for a broader, more pervasive
influence. In one study (Raza & Carpenter, 1987), the Body Type
authors empirically tested a model of attractiveness Research (Benson, Severs, Tagenhorst, & Lodden-
influence and found that such demographics as age gaard, 1980; Hankins, McKinnie, & Bailey, 1979;
and gender of the interviewers and the applicants as Harris et al., 1982; Larkin & Pines, 1979; Rothblum,
well as the type of job involved influenced the inter- Miller,& Garbutt, 1988) has clearly established what
viewers’ judgments of the applicants’ attractiveness. most U.S. citizens already know, in effect, that endo-
In turn, the interviewers’ judgments of attractiveness morphic body types (especially very obese individu-
influenced their likeability towards the applicants. als) are the victims of an unfavorable cultural
Likeability judgments influenced interviewers’ judg- stereotype. For example, the Hankins et al. (1979)
ments of the applicants’ intelligence, and judgments study found no difference between tall versus short
of intelligence influenced assessments of the appli- (height) or bald versus full (cranial hair) but did note
cants’ skills. Raza and Carpenter (1987) also con- significant differences between slender or normal
tended that the last three qualities - likeability, and obese people, with the former two body types
intelligence, and skill - were the three main influ- rated as more assertive, as making better supervi-
ences on interviewers’ assessment of a given appli- sors, and as being more favorably accepted by col-
cant’s employability and, finally, that a judgment of leagues and by supervisors. The authors explain the
employability influenced judgments related to poten- difference by noting that height and hair were per-
tial for hire. In a study involving less complex causal- ceived as outside of one’s control, but that body
ity, Kinicki and Lockwood (1985) also claimed that weight may be voluntarily regulated. Harris et al.
judgments of attractiveness influenced interviewers’ (1982) also found that both obese men and women
assessment of an applicants’ skills and, in turn, were viewed as less active, intelligent, hard-working,

suitability for hire. attractive, popular, successful, and athletic than

In brief, deciding whether judgments of attractive- persons of normal weight. Larkin and Pines (1979)
ness function as a tie breaker between otherwise concluded that overweight people were viewed more
equal candidates or whether such judgments have negatively on variables considered relevant for suc-
some more pervasive, domino-like effect may not be cessful job performance and that overweight people
as important for educators and trainers as develop- were less highly recommended than people of aver-

ing dialogue with and among students based upon age weight even when both body types scored the
relative effect. Such discussions might develop in same on objectively identical performance tests.
several useful ways, for example, depending on class

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at University of Manchester Library on May 11, 2015

16

Dress Reed (1986) and Francis and Evans (1988) also sup-
Being physically unattractive or obese is in part port the importance of value (dark attire) on assess-
ments of employment potential.
related to genetics, and while change is possible
through surgery or diet, such changes are often Riggio and Throckmorton (1988) also noted that
no specific business uniform for women exists in the
difficult to accomplish. However, dress provides an
minds of evaluators. However, their research con-
opportunity for more manageable change, and at cludes that if women are to dress suitably, it probably
least some research suggests that dress which
reflects prevailing cultural expectations for the means conforming to what has become a cultural
employment interview may be more influential than stereotype for the well-dressed, aspiring female
executive, in effect, dress which to some extent
physical attractiveness. In a study on the influence of reflects traditional male attire. Research by Forsythe,
physical attractiveness, dress, and job type, Johnson
and Roach-Higgins (1987) found that style of dress Drake, and Cox (1985) supports a similar conclusion,
had a consistent influence on interviewers’ percep- noting that masculinity of a female’s attire favorably
enhances selection decisions. Using the same women
tion of employability. Riggio and Throckmorton
dressed in four different outfits, evaluators gave more
(1988) found appropriate dress to be stronger than favorable ratings to those females dressed in blazers
physical attractiveness in terms of impact on judges’ or short belted jackets or tailored suits than to the
evaluations of potential for hire.
same women dressed in a beige dress with a small
However, even if appropriate dress has more influ-
ence than physical attractiveness, dress is a variable
rounded collar and gathered, long sleeves. Similar
conclusions about clothing choice, in effect, a prefer-
that can be neutralized, in that both attractive and
ence for &dquo;conservative styles,&dquo; is reported by Jenkins
unattractive applicants can dress appropriately. For
and Atkins (1990). Forsythe (1990) also supports a
example, research by Bardack and McAndrew (1985) masculine style for women, noting that applicants
indicates that attractive applicants still retain an
with clothing masculinity were perceived as more
advantage over unattractive applicants when both forceful and aggressive and also received more favor-
dress appropriately. Specifically, the authors found
that an unattractive person who dressed appropri-
able hiring recommendations.
ately only slightly improved chances for being hired Grooming
whereas an attractive person who also dressed
Consistent with dress for women that is more mascu-
appropriately improved chances for being hired line and conservative is research on grooming. Cash
significantly more. Indeed, and somewhat inconsis-
tent with Riggio and Throckmorton (1988), Bardack (1985) discovered that grooming by women which
and McAndrew (1985) suggest that there is some reflects what was termed a managerial style, for
evidence that even attractive but inappropriately example, shorter, simpler hairstyles, hair away from
dressed applicants were hired more often than unat- face and lacking adornments, moderate facial cos-
tractive applicants who dressed appropriately. metics, tailored blouses and jackets, and simple gold
While the relative influence of attractiveness and jewelry, was favored by raters, especially male raters.
dress will probably be the subject of further research As a part of their study, Harris et al. (1982) found
that men or women wearing glasses were judged as
and debate, guidelines for what constitutes appropri-
ate dress for the employment interview are, for the relatively more intelligent, hard-working, and suc-
moment, more agreed upon in both research and cessful, but also not as active, outgoing, attractive,
popular writings (Molloy, 1988) and for both men and popular, or athletic as those who did not wear
women. Regarding males, Scherbaum and Shepherd glasses. In a study focusing on cosmetics use, Cox
and Glick (1986) found cosmetics use to be positively
(1987) had MBA students judge an artist’s sketches correlated with perceived attractiveness, femininity,
of applicants. The sketches varied in sex, color of suit
and sexiness. Make-up strengthened sex-role stereo-
(blue or red), and the presence/absence of a jacket
(layering). The person shown wearing a blue jacket types associated with traditionally feminine jobs
was perceived as more competent and properly (secretary). No effect was found for nongender jobs
dressed than those wearing a red or no jacket. The (accountant). In any case, research findings (Mack &
study also found that the manner of dress of the Rainey, 1990) and popular writings (Molloy, 1988) are
males had more impact on the MBA evaluators than consistent in their observations that such cues have a
the manner of dress of the females. The authors persistent influence on hiring decisions and may be
confirm what appears to be a deeply ingrained cul- particularly important for women who may need to
tural stereotype regarding the expected style for attend more than males to dress/grooming cues that
males taking interviews - darker colors and layering, manage an impression.
in effect, the traditional dark suit. Damhorst and In brief, body type, dress, and grooming also con-
tribute to interviewer decision making.
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at University of Manchester Library on May 11, 2015
 17

Physical/facial attractiveness and body type are not leagues on the value of what they teach. Ideally,
as easily changed as dress and grooming. Both sexes future eavesdropping would find professors
are also somewhat culturally confined regarding discussing issues drawn from examination of current
what is appropriate dress and grooming for the job research rather than lamenting an image which need
interview and may consider several options regard- not exist.
ing dress and grooming which are or are not consis-
REFERENCES
’

tent with personal taste. In turn, selection-interview

educators might attempt to expand on the advice Bardack, N. R., & McAndrew, F. T. (1985). The influence of physi-
cal attractiveness and manner of dress on success in a simu-
usually given here, particularly as related to dress lated personnel decision. Journal of Social Psychology, 125,
and grooming. Questions that discuss the cultural 777-778.
values, for example, preference for &dquo;masculine&dquo; Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1982). Applicant attractiveness as a
dress, might move students to consider interview perceived job-relevant variable in selection of management
trainees. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 607-617.
appearance as more than just finding the culturally
correct costume for a given presentation of self. Benson, P. L., Severs, D., Tagenhorst, J., & Loddengaard, N.
(1980). The social costs of obesity: A non-reactive field study.
Indeed, questions related to the possible tension Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 91-96.
between personal choice and such corporate and Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In
cultural expectations as well as questions related to L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol-
both the individual and comparative influence of such ogy,7, (pp. 158-215). New York: Academic Press.
variables might provide students with more than just Buckley, M. R., & Eder, R. W. (1988). B. M. Springbett and the
notion of the ’snap decision’ in the interview. Journal of
tips for playing the part of job applicant. Management, 14, 59-67.
Cash, T. F. (1985). The impact of grooming style on the evaluation
Conclusion .

of women in management. In M. Solomon (Ed.), The psychol-

The above five propositions provide selection educa- ogy of fashion (pp. 343-355). New York: Lexington Press.
tors with some direction for a revitalized discussion Cash, T. F., Gillen, B., & Burns, D. S. (1977). Sexism and "beauty-
ism" in personnel consultant decision making. Journal of
of applicant appearance which hopefully goes beyond
Applied Psychology, 62, 301-307.
recitation of advice dos and don’ts. Attention to defin- Cash, T. F., & Kilcullen, R. N. (1985). The eye of the beholder:
itions, process, position expectations, effects, and Susceptibility to sexism and "beautyism" in the evaluation of
related appearance variables should enrich both managerial applicants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
15, 591-605.
understanding and impression management for the
would-be job applicant. After all, until some ideal Cox, C. L., & Glick, W. H. (1986). Résumé evaluations and cos-
metic use: When more is not better. Sex Roles, 14, 51-58.
form of employment interviewing emerges, appear-
Croxton, J. S., Van-Rensselaer, B., Dutton. D. L., & Ellis, D. (1989).
ance will most likely have a continuing (and perhaps Mediating effect of prestige on occupational stereotypes.
inordinate) influence on decisions made. Indeed, in Psychological Reports, 64, 723-732.
an ideal employment interview, the process would Damhorst, M. L., & Reed, J. A. P. (1986). Clothing color value and
involve an exchange of only job-relevant information facial expression: Effects on evaluations of female job appli-
cants. Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 89-98.
and expectations followed by objective assessment by
Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful
both parties (Jablin & McCombs, 1984). But employ- is what is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
ment interviews are not ideal and in fact are 24,
285-290.
processed through attention to culturally conditioned Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Selection interviews: Process perspectives.
cues as discussed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Given that such cultural stereotyping is unlikely to Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1977). Sex and
diminish soon and recognizing that the propositions physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determi-
nants of résumé evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62,
advanced hardly exhaust the topic, this paper offers 288-294.
some direction and encouragement to instructors, Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L., & Wiback, K. (1975). Relative
trainers, and others who are charged with providing importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic
understanding and advice to prospective applicants. standing in evaluation of job applicant résumé. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 39-43.
Admittedly, there is much to be discussed in prepar- Farr, J. L., & York, C. M. (1975). Amount of information and
ing for and participating in an employment interview primacy-recency effects in recruitment decisions. Personnel
and perhaps never enough time or space to cover it Psychology, 28, 233-238.
all. Nevertheless, more critical attention to applicant Forsythe, S. (1990). Effect of applicant’s clothing on interviewer’s
decision to hire. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20,
appearance should transcend how to make an 1579-1595.
impression and encompass what making an impres- Forsythe, S., Drake, M. F., & Cox, C. E. (1985). Influence of appli-
sion implies by way of both personal and professional cant’s dress on interviewer’s selection decisions. Journal of
choice. If educators ignore the dialogue such choices Applied Psychology, 70, 374-378.
invite, preferring brief prescriptions and folk wis-
dom, they should be ready for criticism from col-
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at University of Manchester Library on May 11, 2015
18

Francis, S. K. & Evans, P. K. (1988). Effects of hue, value, and Morrow, P. C., McElroy, J. C., Stamper, B. G., & Wilson, M. A.
garment style on college recruiters’ assessments of employ- (1990). The effects of physical attractiveness and other demo-
ment potential. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 87-93. graphic characteristics on promotion decisions. Journal of
Gifford, R., Ng, C. F., & Wilkinson, M. (1985). Nonverbal cues in Management, 16, 723-736.
the employment interview: Links between applicant qualities O’Hair, D., & Friedrich, G. W. (1992). Strategic communication in
and interviewer judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, business and the professions. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
729-736. Quereshi, M. Y, & Kay, J. P. (1986). Physical attractiveness, age
Gilmore, D. C., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. G. (1986). Effects of and sex as determinants of reactions to résumés. Social
applicant sex, applicant physical attractiveness, type of rater Behavior and Personality, 14, 103-113.
and type of job on interview decisions. Journal of Occupational Ralston, S. M., & Kirkwood, W. G. (1995). Overcoming managerial
Psychology, 59,
103-109. bias in employment interviewing. Journal of Applied Commu-
Hamilton, C. (1993). Communicating for results. Belmont, CA: nication Research, 23, 75-92.
Wadsworth. Rasmussen, K. G. (1984). Nonverbal behavior, verbal behavior,
Hankins, N. E., McKinnie, W. T., & Bailey, R. C. (1979). Effects of résumé credentials, and selection interview outcomes. Journal
height, physique, and cranial hair on job-related attributes. of Applied Psychology, 69,
551-556.
Psychological Reports, 45, 853-854. Raza, S. M., & Carpenter, B. N. (1987). A model of hiring decisions
Harris, M. B., Harris, R. J., & Bochner, S. (1982). Fat, four-eyed, in real employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology,
and female: Stereotypes of obesity, glasses and gender. Journal 72, 596-603.
of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 503-516. Riggio, R. E., & Throckmorton, B. (1988). The relative effects of
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, mirror... New York: verbal and nonverbal behavior, appearance, and social skills
State University of New York Press. on evaluations made in hiring interviews. Journal of Applied

Heilman, M. E., & Saruwatari, L. R. (1979). When beauty is Social Psychology, 18, 331-348.
beastly: The effects of appearance and sex on evaluations of job Rothblum, E. D., Miller, C. T., & Garbutt, B. (1988). Stereotypes of
applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. Organiza- obese female job applicants. International Journal of Eating
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 360-372. Disorders, 7, 277-283.
Huegli, J. M., & Tschrigi, H. (1975). An investigation of the rela- Rowe, P. M. (1989). Unfavorable information and interview
tionship of time to recruitment interview decision making. decisions. In R. W. Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment
Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 234-236. interview: Theory, research, and practice. (pp. 77-89). Newbury
Iliffe, A. M. (1960). A study of preferences in feminine beauty. Park, CA: Sage.
British Journal of Psychology, 51, 267-73. Scherbaum, C. J., & Shepherd, D. H. (1987). Dressing for success:
Izraeli, D. N., & Izraeli, D. (1985). Sex effects in evaluating Effects of color and layering on perceptions of women in
leaders: A replication study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, business. Sex Roles, 16, 391-399.
540-546. Schmitt, N. (1976). Social and situational determinants of inter-
Jablin, F. M., & McCombs, K. B. (1984). The employment screen- view decisions: Implications for the employment interview.
ing interview: An organizational assimilation and communica- Personnel Psychology, 29, 79-101.
tion perspective. In Communication yearbook, 8, (pp. 137-163). Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Gehrlein, T. M. (1993). Attractive-
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. ness bias in the interview: Exploring the boundaries of an

Jenkins, M. C., & Atkins, T. V. (1990). Perceptions of acceptable effect. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 317-328.
dress by corporate and noncorporate recruiters. Journal of Snyder, M., Berscheid, E., & Matwychuk, A. (1988). Orientations
Human Behavior and Learning, 7, 38-46. toward personnel selection: Differential reliance on appear-
ance and personality. Journal of Personality and Social
Johnson, K. K., & Roach-Higgins, M. E. (1987). The influence of
physical attractiveness and dress on campus recruiters’ Psychology, 54, 972-979.
impressions of female job applicants. Home Economics Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception
Research Journal, 16, 87-95. and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of
Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (1992). Nonverbal communication in social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
human interaction. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and ogy,
656-666.
35,
Winston. Springbett, B. M. (1958). Factors affecting the final decision in the
Kinicki, A. J., & Lockwood, C. A. (1985). The interview process: An employment interview. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 12,
examination of factors recruiters use in evaluating job appli- 13-22.
cants. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 117-125. Stewart, C., & Cash, W. B. (1994). Interviewing: Principles and
Larkin, J. C., & Pines, H. A. (1979). No fat persons need apply: practices. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Experimental studies of the overweight stereotype and hiring Ugbah, S. D., & Evuleocha, S. U. (1992). The importance of
preference. In Sociology of work and occupations, 6, 312-327. written, verbal, and nonverbal communication factors in
Longo, L. C., & Ashmore, R. D. (1992). The perceived relationship employment interview decisions. Journal of Employment
between physical attractiveness and social influence effective- Counseling, 29, 128-137.
ness. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psycho- Ugbah, S. D., & Major, R. E. (1992). Influential communication
logical Association, Washington, D.C. factors in employment interviews. Journal of Business Com-
Mack, D., & Rainey, D. (1990). Female applicants’ grooming and munication, 29, 145-159.
personnel selection. Journal of Social Behavior and Personal- Wilson, G. L., & Goodall, H. L. (1991). Interviewing in context.
ity, 5,
399-407. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Molloy, J. T. (1988). John T. Molloy’s new dress for success. New Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth. New York: William Morrow.
York: Warner Books. Young, D. M., & Beier, E. G. (1977). The role of applicant nonver-
Morrow, P. C. (1990). Physical attractiveness and selection bal communication in the employment interview. Journal of
decision making. Journal of Management, 16, 45-60. 154-164. □
Employment Counseling, 14,

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at University of Manchester Library on May 11, 2015