He had been persecuted and despised for his ugliness, and now he heard them say he was the most beautiful of all the birds. Even the elder-tree bent down its bows into the water before him, and the sun shone warm and bright. Then he rustled his feathers, curved his slender neck, and cried joyfully, from the depths of his heart, “I never dreamed of such happiness as this, while I was an ugly duckling.” (Andersen, 1844)
Likewise, attractive people may be destined for happiness if we believe that good looks alone are enough to bring all good things in life. Which brings us to this week's meme:
The premise is that, if you are as attractive as Ridiculously Photogenic Guy, your entire résumé (or curriculum vitae) can just be a head shot because you will get any job that you want based on your stunning good looks. So does attractiveness trump skills for every job application? The real life answer is a bit more complicated.
Jahwahar and Mattsson (2005) conducted two experiments to test this idea. Of particular interest is Experiment Two because the participants were actual Human Resources professionals. These HR workers (36 female and 25 male) were asked to evaluate four candidates for a job by looking at the candidates' test scores and head shots. They were instructed to choose one person to give the job to, and to evaluate on a scale of 1-5 how likely they would be to give that type of job to each candidate.
They were not told that:
*the four candidates were always one attractive woman (Julie), one less attractive woman (Stacy), one attractive man (Paul), and one less attractive man (Richard). The attractiveness level of each candidate's photo was verified in this and in previous studies. (But if you are named Stacy or Richard - don't worry! The names were chosen to indicate the sex of the candidates.).
*the test scores from the candidates were invented to give the impression that there was no difference in skills or aptitudes that would make a candidate better or worse for the job. The same scores were always used but, depending on the job in question, the supposed test was given a different name. For example "Sales Potential Test" and "Social Work Aptitude Test" were used to label the same results for different jobs.
*the job that they needed to consider was either a male-dominated job, automobile sales supervisor; or a female-dominated job, school social worker. The gendered domination was determined based on a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Each HR worker considered only one of these jobs for the four candidates.
*their level of Self-Monitoring was being assessed. The HR workers completed a Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). High Self-Monitors are very aware of and concerned about the impression that they give to others and of the impressions that others give off. Low self-monitors are less aware of and less concerned about those impressions.
Their results suggest that Ridiculously Photogenic Guy may sometimes have a slight advantage - by being a guy or by being attractive - but not always. It may depend on the type of job he applies for and the characteristics of the person who is evaluating him.
The HR workers in Jahwahar and Mattsson's Study 2 were influenced by the gendered nature of the job: they were more likely to hire a man (65%) or highly endorse a man to become an automobile sales supervisor; they were also more likely to hire a woman (67%) or highly endorse a woman to become a school social worker. This effect was further clarified by separating out the data based on the participants' levels of Self-Monitoring. Low Self-Monitoring HR workers did not follow this gendered trend in hiring; but High-Self Monitoring participants were very likely to hire more men for the "male job" and more women for the "female job."
Attractiveness also seemed to give an advantage: 62% of all hires were the more attractive candidates, Julie and Paul. And, when evaluated by High Self-Monitoring HR workers, attractive men and women received higher ratings for jobs that are dominated by the opposite sex. For example, High Self-Monitoring HR workers rated Paul higher than the less attractive Richard for the school social worker job. Low Self-Monitors did not show that same influence.
So Ridiculously Photogenic Guy may have an advantage by being attractive. Moreover, a High Self-Monitor is more likely to hire him for a male dominated job (because he is a guy) and also more likely to evaluate him well for a female dominated job (because he is ridiculously photogenic). But what about the rest of us who are applying for jobs?
These effects were not huge, but when there is only one position available and lots of qualified candidates it might be small differences like these that drive the final hiring decision. Thus, Jahwahar and Mattsson have a somewhat creepy suggestion:
Given these results, what can applicants who are less attractive do to overcome selection bias against them? ...the bias against less attractive individuals may not be because of (lack of) attractiveness per se but may be because of the assumption that such individuals are less socially skilled than attractive individuals. If this is true, then less attractive applicants could moderate the impact of their appearance by demonstrating social skills and directing the interviewer’s attention to other strengths. Likewise, applicants whose sex is incongruent with the sex type of the job should provide as much individuating information as possible to minimize gender-stereotyped inferences of their attributes and trigger more controlled information processing (p. 572).
This seems disheartening - those of us who are not ridiculously photogenic should shoot for Miss or Mister Congeniality? (Really, I am a nice person - just LOOK at my social skills!) Also, didn't their study just suggest that personal factors like attractiveness can sometimes trump skills? Another issue is that there can be other variables, such as ethnicity, that were not considered by the present study - maybe the stereotype of your ethnicity trumps your attractiveness level or interacts with your sex - so why stress out over improving your attractiveness level when you cannot easily change your ethnicity or sex? And we can never control the characteristics of the person who interviews us.
In the end, the signs that I see around campus imploring our new graduates to iron their shirts and dress up for interviews probably have it right: look your best and sell your strengths. We cannot all be ridiculously photogenic, but all of us can get a job. And when that job means that you get to make hiring decisions, monitor yourself so that stereotypes don't play a starring role in your decision making process.
Further Reading:
Listen to "The Ugly Duckling" or "Den Grimme Ælling" in its native language, Danish!
The Jahwahar and Mattsson (2005) article can be accessed in its published form through your local college library.
Take a Self-Monitoring assessment that was developed by Snyder in 1974. Do you agree with the results?
Buzzfeed's take on the benefits of being attractive. I'm not sure of the accuracy of their sources, but entertaining to watch. How do you think most viewers feel about this video?
In case you need some inspiration - don't forget: You Are Beautiful.
No comments:
Post a Comment