Effects of Attractiveness, and Qualifications on the Applicants Resume on Determining Job Placement and Competence
Karissa Sakamoto
California State University, Dominguez Hills

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of attractiveness and qualifications of a female applicant’s resume on the hiring process on job placement and competence. Hiring decisions based on the ratings of job placement and competence were made for four groups in a vignette situation. Each group had different scenarios, one having an attractive female and the other unattractive female, being unqualified and qualified. The participants were tested as a group. It was hypothesized that the more attractive female, whether they were unqualified and less competent would get the job over the unattractive female that is qualified and more competent. The results show that the job competence group showed significantly higher attractive and qualified scores, but also showed a higher unattractive and unqualified group. The hypothesis that attractiveness would over rule an unattractive applicant was somewhat supported in these conditions. Keywords: attractiveness, job qualifications, competence, job placement

Effects of Attractiveness, and Qualifications on the Applicants Resume on Determining Job Placement and Competence Frequently, people encounter situations in their environment where they feel they are judged by their appearance. Attractiveness is one of the factors that affect how individuals perceive others. It plays a key role in the hiring process for a job. It is therefore of great importance for the ones that are making the hiring decisions, to select the most salient applicant. Many people perceive things differently when it comes to attractive and unattractive people. In a job interview, the recruiter makes judgments on the applicants based on stereotypes such as their appearance and whether they are qualified for the job. Dion and colleagues argue that there are many jobs that are based on bias hiring decisions (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972). Recruiters automatically go for the ideal applicant for a certain job position. Many things are correlated to the attractiveness of an applicant, such examples include where they will be placed in a job, competence, gender, qualifications etc. In a recent research article Desrumaux, Bosscher, and Leoni (2009) discuss how big of an impact attractiveness bias can rely on gender and depending on what job they are applying for. The women’s attractiveness will help them out for a female typed job and for men a masculine job. When applying for jobs it all depends on what you are applying for, for example an attractive women applying for a “male” job (Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989). An unattractive female will be hired over an attractive female but an unattractive male will definitely be hired over an unattractive male. They find that attractive applicants have a higher rate of being hired, compared to an unattractive applicant. In an attribution article, victims that were homosexual received more blame over the homosexual in a rape (Walkelin and Long, 2003). This leading to stereotyping of a heterosexual male and heterosexual female being judged for causing more harm and getting blame in a rape case. Stereotyping also the cause in attractiveness on the hiring process for a job. The more attractive female applicant based on just her facial features will be hired over the unattractive applicant female.
The majority studies studying physical attractiveness focus on body image only. With this intension, recruiters were bias against physically unattractive applicants, choosing someone who was physically attractive favorably when hiring (Dipboye, Fromkin, and Wiback, 1975). Although there were some differences of opinion these researchers agree that it maybe be the maturity of the applicants face along with name warmth may be perceived more sincere and suitable for a job (Copley and Brownlow, 1995). Depending on the job either a mature face or name warmth may be needed for a certain job.
In the present study, the role of attractiveness and qualifications plays in the job placement and competence of the applicant in a hiring process. It is hypothesized that the more attractive person would be more likely to be hired than an unattractive person. The following literatures reviews attempt to demonstrate and support the hypothesis. To test the hypothesis that the attractive person will be rated more favorably in terms job placement over an unattractive person in a hiring process. Specifically, it was expected that with decent qualifications for an attractive person they would be rated more favorably in terms competence over good qualifications in an unattractive person’s resume. The gender was not included in this study because it was well stated that attractiveness and gender have an effect (Desrumaux, Bosscher, & Leoni, 2009).

Methods
Participants
Sixty-six students from California State University, Dominguez Hills (17 male and 49 female) ranging in age from 19 to 54yrs old, were conveniently selected from four different classrooms to voluntarily participate in this experiment. Sample participants were ethnically diverse, 65% Hispanic Americans, 11% Asian Americans, 9% European American, and 9% were other.
Design
A 2x2 factorial ANOVA independent sample design was conducted. This design helps us show the significance of the independent variable on the dependent variable. The independent variables used are attractiveness and qualifications. The independent variables are competence and job placement. The levels of attractiveness were attractive and an unattractive person and levels of qualification were based on education having a high school diploma and the other was a bachelor’s degree these factors were independent between subjects design. The participants were randomly assigned to a group.
Procedure
Sixty-six participants were randomly assigned to four different vignettes of a female applicant’s resume. Before handing out the resumes each participant were told that this was a “study for a psychology class on the hiring process of employment”. The participants were also told it would take no longer than ten minutes of their time. After handing out the resumes, each participant was to sign and tear of the consent form before beginning the packet. At the end of completing the task the participants were handed a debriefing form on exactly what was the main purpose of the study. The vignettes used were setup up as a female applicant resume, which included a picture of the female along with her education, work experience, and skills. There are four different groups, the only thing manipulated in each vignette were the picture of the applicant which measured attractiveness and the qualifications which measure her highest level of education received. Manipulating attractiveness using two different pictures but of the same female, one of her being attractive and the other unattractive. Manipulating qualifications in the vignette, changing the applicant’s education one having a bachelor’s degree in psychology and the other with only a high school diploma.
Job Placement measure. Job placement was shown as an ordinal scale. The participants were asked where the applicant would be place if they were to be hired. The first, being a phone receptionist in the back ($23,000-$27,000). The second, being a phone receptionist in the counter ($27,000-$33,000). The last option is a front desk of admissions and records ($33,000-$38,000).
Competence measure. Competence was shown as an interval scale. Using a 4-point rating scale ranging “strongly agree to “strongly disagree” was used to determine how competent they thought the applicant would be. An example of the scale used was asking the participant if The applicant has the skills in obtaining the job and rating them from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.
Results
An independent sample designs was used to measure the association attractiveness and qualifications has on job competence and job placement. Job Competence Measure. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was managed on job competence scores showed there was no significance on qualifications levels, F(1,66)=.94, p>.05. There was also no significance on attractiveness levels F(1,66)=0, p>.05. Overall, there is a significance that job competence plays on both attractiveness and qualifications together, F(1,66)=4.38, p<.05. The mean job competence scores for the first time interval are shown graphically in Figure 1. Comparisons of means scores presented in figure 1 show that the unattractive and unqualified group was significantly competent (M=18) than the attractive and unqualified group (M=16), p >.05 Job Placement Measure. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) was also managed on job placement scores. Job placement had no significance on attractiveness levels, F(1,66)=2.2, p>.05, and no significance on qualification levels, F(1,66)=1.34, p>.05. Overall, job placement did not show a significance on attractiveness and qualifications levels, F(1,66)=1.26, p>.05. It is clear that job placement had no impact on attractiveness and qualifications, since they were all equal.
Discussion
The results to some extent provided supported to our hypothesis. The results revealed that the raters thought an unattractive female that was unqualified was rated higher than the unqualified and attractive female applicant in job competence measure, which went against our hypothesis. It also, showed that the qualified and attractive female applicant was rated higher than the unattractive and qualified female applicant in job competence measure, which supported our hypothesis. Likewise, these findings are supported with a previous studies which look toward the physical attraction of an applicant may be important predictors of being hired by job competence (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972). The results on job placement showed no significance at all. The attractiveness and qualifications did not have an impact on job placement measures. It did not matter if the applicant was attractive or unattractive to be placed in a certain position, but by their qualifications they were placed on level of education and skills to attain a certain job position. However, consistent with prior research with job placement (Heilman et al., 1989), it did show that job placement was determined by the job they were applying. Whether it was for a masculine or feminine type of job, further research was investigated in that research which did not cover in our research. The present study did not attempt to resolve the gender difference between a male or female applicant and comparing the participant’s gender. Further research would show the view of the applicant through a certain gender and may show a more sensitive relationship between attractiveness and qualifications on job competence and placement. A male and females perspective is perceived differently on the applicant they are judging. Though a male or female may envy the applicant of the same sex if they were attractive and rate them differently. Another problem in the present research, the picture being used for our female applicant might have been a weak variable. Maybe she was not as attractive as we thought she would be and that can be why our measures were so weak and hypocritical. Also, another factor that may have hurt the research may be the vignette, we did not mention the job they were applying for, which made no significance in the job placement. That also led the participants to ask questions which may have also given away the hypothesis and changed the participants thought. Take into account there are many variables that may throw light on further research.

References
Copley, J. E., & Brownlow, S. (1995). The interactive effects of facial maturity and name warmth on perceptions of job candidates. Basic And Applied Social Psychology, 16(1-2), 251-265. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1601&2_15
Desrumaux, P., De Bosscher, S., & Léoni, V. (2009). Effects of facial attractiveness, gender, and competence of applicants on job recruitment. Swiss Journal Of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Revue Suisse De Psychologie, 68(1), 33-42. doi:10.1024/1421-0185.68.1.33
Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. ( 1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285– 290
Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L., & Wiback, K. Relative. (1975) importance of applicant sex, attractiveness and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 39-43.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. ( 1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935– 942.
Wakelin, A., & Long, K. M. (2003). Effects of Victim Gender and Sexuality on Attributions of Blame to Rape Victims. Sex Roles, 49(9-10), 477-487. doi:10.1023/A:1025876522024

Figure 1. Job Competence scores for four groups. Mean scores for the qualifications and attractiveness of job competence.

VassarStats Printable Report
2x2 Factorial ANOVA for Independent Samples standard weighted-means analysis
Wed Nov 13 2013 12:36:53 GMT-0800 (PST)

Data Entered | | Col 1 | Col 2 | Col 3 | Col 4 | Row 1 | 181719161820172214191814192323 | 1714131717141614181718201412221718 | --- | --- | Row 2 | 1815132117141819171516121717161617 | 17201824206111820614192024221918 | --- | --- | Row 3 | --- | --- | --- | --- | Row 4 | --- | --- | --- | --- |

Summary Data | Within each box: Item 1 = N Item 2 = X Item 3 = Mean Item 4 = X2 Item 5 = Variance Item 6 = Std. Dev. Item 7 = Std. Err. | | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | Tot. | R1 | 1527718.466752237.72.770.72 | 1727816.352946546.742.60.63 | --- | --- | 3255517.343898778.12.850.5 | R2 | 1827815.4444462219.324.41.04 | 1729617.4118560828.385.331.29 | --- | --- | 3557416.41023024.014.90.83 | R3 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | R4 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | Tot. | 3355516.8182984515.9740.7 | 3457416.88241026217.324.160.71 | --- | --- | 67112916.85072010716.44.050.49 |

ANOVA Summary | Source | SS | df | MS | F | P | Rows | 14.89 | 1 | 14.89 | 0.94 | 0.336 | Columns | 0.07 | 1 | 0.07 | 0 | 1 | r x c | 69.37 | 1 | 69.37 | 4.38 | 0.0404 | Error | 998.18 | 63 | 15.84 | Total | 1082.51 | 66 |

Critical Values for the Tukey HSD Test | | HSD[.05] | HSD[.01] | HSD=the absolute [unsigned] difference between any two means (row means, column means, or cell means) required for significance at the designated level: HSD[.05] for the .05 level; HSD[.01] for the .01 level. The HSD test between row means can be meaningfully performed only if the row effect is significant; between column means, only if the column effect is significant; and between cell means, only if the interaction effect is significant. | Rows [2] | 1.94 | 2.59 | | Columns [2] | 1.94 | 2.59 | | Cells [4] | 3.64 | 4.48 | | | |

VassarStats Printable Report
2x2 Factorial ANOVA for Independent Samples standard weighted-means analysis
Wed Nov 13 2013 12:46:13 GMT-0800 (PST)

Data Entered | | Col 1 | Col 2 | Col 3 | Col 4 | Row 1 | 333111112321222 | 23221222222123212 | --- | --- | Row 2 | 11322111133321223 | 23333313322222231 | --- | --- | Row 3 | --- | --- | --- | --- | Row 4 | --- | --- | --- | --- |

Summary Data | Within each box: Item 1 = N Item 2 = X Item 3 = Mean Item 4 = X2 Item 5 = Variance Item 6 = Std. Dev. Item 7 = Std. Err. | | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | Tot. | R1 | 15281.8667620.70.830.22 | 17331.9412690.310.560.13 | --- | --- | 32611.90631310.470.690.12 | R2 | 17321.8824720.740.860.21 | 17402.35291020.490.70.17 | --- | --- | 34722.11761740.650.810.14 | R3 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | R4 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | Tot. | 32601.8751340.690.830.15 | 34732.14711710.430.660.11 | --- | --- | 661332.01523050.570.750.09 |

1.26ANOVA Summary | Source | SS | df | MS | F | P | Rows | 0.74 | 1 | 0.74 | 1.34 | 0.2515 | Columns | 1.22 | 1 | 1.22 | 2.2 | 0.1431 | r x c | 0.7 | 1 | 0.7 | 1.26 | 0.266 | Error | 34.32 | 62 | 0.55 | Total | 36.98 | 65 |

Critical Values for the Tukey HSD Test | | HSD[.05] | HSD[.01] | HSD=the absolute [unsigned] difference between any two means (row means, column means, or cell means) required for significance at the designated level: HSD[.05] for the .05 level; HSD[.01] for the .01 level. The HSD test between row means can be meaningfully performed only if the row effect is significant; between column means, only if the column effect is significant; and between cell means, only if the interaction effect is significant. | Rows [2] | 0.37 | 0.49 | | Columns [2] | 0.37 | 0.49 | | Cells [4] | 0.69 | 0.84 | | | |