A Prototype Matching Approach to Understanding the Role of Applicant Gender and Age in the Evaluation of Job Applicants1

This research uses a prototype matching approach to understand how job applicant evaluations are made and the role that applicant gender and age play in these evaluations. It is hypothesized that raters represent information about jobs and jobholders in person-in-job prototypes. Raters evaluate applicants by matching information about applicants to the person-in-job prototype associated with the job for which the applicant is applying. Person-in-job prototypes are comprised of features that are more (i.e., central) or less (i.e., peripheral) strongly associated with the prototype. Three laboratory studies examined several hypotheses derived from a prototype matching approach. Results indicated that applicants who matched on more central features were evaluated more favorably than applicants who matched on fewer central features of person-in-job prototypes. In addition, applicants who matched on age were evaluated more favorably than applicants who did not match on age when age was a central but not a peripheral feature of a person-in-job prototype. However, applicants who matched on gender were not evaluated differently from applicants who did not match on gender when gender was a central or a peripheral feature of a person-in-job prototype. Finally, there was some evidence that raters used applicant gender in a complex manner when evaluating applicants. Implications for theory and research on bias in selection are discussed.     

The Employment Interview via the Telephone: Are We Sacrificing Accurate Personality Judgments for Cost Efficiency?

The goal of the study was to determine whether impoverished personality judgments of job candidates would be yielded by interviewers who conduct telephone interviews in comparison to face-to-face interviews due to the telephone interviews' inherent lack of crucial nonverbal communication. Participants in this study conducted mock job interviews using either the face-to-face format or the telephone format, while their behavior was coded by independent raters. For each participant, self-ratings of job-related personality traits were obtained from the applicant, while ratings of the applicant's personality were obtained from the interviewer and a peer of the applicant. It was found that the average self-interviewer and peer-interviewer agreement correlations, which were used as the criteria for accuracy, were significantly greater when the interviewer implemented the face-to-face interview method, thus supporting the hypothesis. An item analysis further supported the hypothesis in that face-to-face interviewers were found to rate the candidates significantly higher/more favorably on those traits that are typically conveyed via nonverbal communication.     

A Closer Look at the Role of Applicant Age in Selection Decisions

Participants evaluated hypothetical applicants recruited from a younger (university students) or older (American Association of Retired Persons) population for 2 young-typed jobs, one more strongly young-typed than the other. Participants were given applicant information, including age and personal characteristics, that varied in the extent to which it was consistent with raters' job stereotypes. Results indicated that younger applicants were evaluated more favorably than older applicants. However, an Applicant Age × Job interaction effect indicated that the older applicant was evaluated less favorably for the more strongly compared with the less strongly young-typed job. In addition. applicants whose personal characteristics (other than age) were more consistent with raters' job stereotypes were evaluated more favorably than applicants whose characteristics were less consistent. Results also indicated that applicant age and personal characteristics interacted to influence applicant evaluations. The implications of these and other study results are discussed.     

Evaluation of male and female applicants for sex-congruent and sex-incongruent jobs

The present study was designed to assess whether applicants for a sex-incongruent position would be evaluated less favorably by personnel administrators than applicants for a sex-congruent position. It was predicted that negative evaluations of sex-incongruent applicants would increase as a function of participants' reliance on sex-role stereotypes. Forty-four personnel administrators were asked to review the qualifications and evaluate one of four job applicants. Sex of the applicant and sex-orientation of the position were systematically varied. Participants were presented with credentials of a male or female applicant for a traditionally male- or female-oriented position. While results did not support Cohen and Bunker's contention that sex-incongruent job applicants would be viewed less favorably, the data did suggest that evaluations of the sex-incongruent applicants (especially the female applicant) varied as a function of sex-role stereotyping.The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided by Thom Hurlburt, Joan Van Tassel, and Amy Post.     

Applicant reactions to face-to-face and technology-mediated interviews: a field investigation

This field study examined applicant reactions (N = 802) toward face-to-face as compared with technology-mediated interviews (through videoconferencing or by telephone) for 346 organizations. Face-to-face interviews were perceived as more fair and led to higher job acceptance intentions than were videoconferencing and telephone interviews. Perceived interview outcomes were higher with face-to-face and telephone interviews over videoconferencing. Self-monitoring moderated the relationship between interview medium and perceptions of fairness. Specifically, this relationship was (a). positive for face-to-face, (b). negative for telephone, and (c). nonsignificant for videoconferencing interviews. Moreover, the number of offers an applicant received moderated the relationship between interview medium over, and perceived fairness. The relationship between number of offers and perceived fairness was positive for face-to-face and negative for technology-mediated interviews.     

Acknowledging One's Stigma in the Interview Setting: Effective Strategy or Liability?1

The current research examines how members of stigmatized groups remediate hiring biases by adopting the strategy of directly acknowledging their stigmatizing condition within the interview context. In the first study, 123 participants responded to a videotaped interview involving an obese or physically disabled job applicant who either did or did not acknowledge a stigma. In the second study, 87 participants responded to scenarios that manipulated type of stigma, controllability of its onset, and acknowledgment. Results across both experiments reveal that applicants who did not acknowledge their obesity or physical disability in an employment context were not viewed differently from each other. However, if applicants did acknowledge, the perceived controllability of the stigmas strongly influenced how they would be perceived.     

A FIELD STUDY OF JOB APPLICANT INTERVIEW PERCEPTIONS, ALTERNATIVE OPPORTUNITIES, AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

A field study was conducted to examine several factors related to young job applicants, their reactions to job interviews, and their intentions to accept a job if offered. Immediately following their interviews, 422 applicants voluntarily responded to questionnaires concerning the interview, parents' and friends' pressure for them to take the job, alternative job opportunities, and behavioral intentions to accept the job. Applicants who responded more favorably to their interviewers felt somewhat more positive about taking a job in the recruiting organization. Perceived alternative job opportunities moderated the relationship between reactions to the job and acceptance intentions. Multivariate effects were found for applicant sex, applicant race, and interviewer sex on reactions to the interviewer and the interview. Further research on the role of parental and peer pressure on job acceptance among young workers is suggested, as is the moderating role of alternative opportunities. The implications of race and sex differences in interview reactions are also discussed.     

On winnowing: The impact of scarcity on allocators' evaluations of candidates for a resource

It was hypothesized that allocators unwittingly forge a relation between the availability of a resource and the worthiness of the applicants for that resource. In a simulation of an academic job search, graduate students were instructed to hire either 2 or 6 of 12 excellent candidates. Subjects spoke into a tape recordor reporting their initial reactions to each of the candidate's vitae, then made their hiring decisions, and rated the desirability of each of the candidates. Next, they were told they could now hire more of the applicants if they wished to do so. In a control condition, subjects were treated identically to experimental subjects in all aspects of the procedure but one—they did not anticipate and were not required to make hiring decisions. Instead, they rank ordered the applicants in terms of quality with the knowledge that “their department” wished to hire either 2 or 6 people. As hypothesized, subjects anticipating 2 appointments made fewer positive comments about the candidates on the audiotapes than did those anticipating 6 appointments; subjects in the experimental condition evaluated the candidates they hired more favorably than subjects in the control condition evaluated their own top-ranked candidates; subjects who were initially required to hire 2 candidates continued to employ fewer applicants than those who initially hired 6 when external hiring constraints were removed. The implications of the data for the review process in academic psychology journals were discussed.     

AN EXPERIMENTAL FIELD STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL DISCRIMINATION TOWARD MUSLIM JOB APPLICANTS

Integrating justification-suppression and stereotype content models of prejudice, this research examines religious discrimination in employment settings. In the first study, confederates dressed in either Muslim-identified or nonreligious attire, who either did or did not provide stereotype-inconsistent information, applied for retail jobs. No differences emerged with regard to interview offers between job applicants dressed in traditional Muslim attire and those in the control condition. However, interactions were shorter and rated (by confederates, observers, and naïve coders) as more interpersonally negative when applicants wore Muslim attire and did not provide stereotype-inconsistent information than when applicants wore nonreligious attire. Similarly, results from a second experimental study in which participants rated fictitious Muslim or non-Muslim job applicants suggest that reactions were most negative toward Muslim applicants who did not provide stereotype-inconsistent information. Together, these findings suggest that justification-suppression and stereotype content models are complementary, and that Muslims may face challenges to employment that reflect a lack of acceptance of this religious identity.     

Acknowledging One's Physical Disability in the Interview: Does “When” Make a Difference?

The current research investigates acknowledgments that physically disabled individuals make in an interview setting, and examines whether the timing of an acknowledgment makes a difference to the impressions that evaluators form. A total of 137 participants watched an interview of a disabled applicant who (a) made no acknowledgment about the disability; or who acknowledged the disability at the (b) beginning, (c) middle, or (d) end of a job interview. Applicants who did not acknowledge or who acknowledged at the end of the interview were perceived less favorably than were those who disclosed earlier in the interview. Furthermore, participants' perceptions of the applicant's psychological well-being mediated the effect of acknowledgment timing on hiring-related outcomes. Results are discussed in terms of self-presentational strategies that physically disabled individuals might adopt and the importance of establishing one's psychological well-being early in the impression-formation process.     

EFFECTS OF HANDICAP AND JOB CHARACTERISTICS ON SELECTION EVALUATIONS

An experiment was conducted using 211 upper division and graduate business administration students who evaluated hypothetical job applicants. The applicant was either an amputee, an epileptic, or "normal." The job either involved public contact or it did not; and, it either involved supervisory responsibilities or it did not. Generally, handicapped applicants were evaluated no differently than normal applicants. Epileptic applicants, however, were expected to establish better relationships with clients and customers as well as with other employees than were normal applicants. Further, amputees were offered a smaller salary than normals. Implications for future research and unfair discrimination are discussed.     

Double Jeopardy Upon Resumé Screening: When Achmed Is Less Employable Than Aïsha

Applicants belong to multiple categories (e.g., male, ethnic minority) and a complex set of factors affects category activation and inhibition when making hiring decisions. Two field experiments with recruiters who regularly engage in resumé screening showed that the role of multiple categories (applicants’ ethnicity and sex) in discrimination depended on job type and prejudice. Specifically, in both low‐ and high‐demand (i.e., complex) jobs, Arab women were rated more favorably than Arab men, particularly when considering levels of client contact. Across both studies, recruiters high in explicit ethnic prejudice were discriminatory only when applicants’ job qualifications fit the job position less, lending support for the attributional‐ambiguity effect. Implicit attitudes did not play a strong role. Our study findings point to the complex nature of multiple categorization effects in the hiring process. Implications are considered as to how to avert hiring discrimination during resumé screening.     

The Effect of Name on Pre‐Interview Impressions and Occupational Stereotypes: The Case of Black Sales Job Applicants

Name is an important, yet under‐researched racial cue that can affect evaluators' opinions, attitudes, and beliefs about minority job applicants. This study examined a two‐way ANOVA interaction between name and sales job type on White sales professionals' pre‐interview impressions of Black applicants. Results indicated a significant interaction between applicant name and sales job type on pre‐interview impressions. For outside sales jobs, Anglicized‐named applicants received more favorable pre‐interview impressions than did ethnic‐named applicants. In addition, pre‐interview impressions of Anglicized‐named applicants were more favorable for outside versus inside sales jobs. Findings, implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.     

When Physical Disabilities Are Not Liabilities: The Role of Applicant and Interviewer Characteristics on Employment Interview Outcomes

An applied sample was randomly assigned to evaluate the credentials of a job candidate with or without a physical disability and whose interview responses varied in quality (positive vs. average vs. negative). In addition to making hiring decisions, participants completed a number of measures including the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), the Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale (Gething, 1991), an interview comfort measure, and an EEOC knowledge quiz. Results consistently indicated that participants evaluated the job candidate with a disability more favorably than the job candidate without a disability. Data also indicated a relationship between participants' level of comfort when interacting with persons with disabilities and their interview evaluations of such individuals. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for diversity management.     

Telephone Interviewing: A Reappraisal and a Field Experiment

A review of 25 empirical evaluations of telephone interviewing indicated that the method compares favorably with face-to-face interviewing in terms of the range of subject matter that can be covered, length of interview, response rates, quality of data, and, most conspicuously, cost. In order to surmount some of the limitations of previous empirical comparisons of the two interviewing methods, a field experiment was conducted wherein 93 interviewers administered either face-to-face or telephone interviews to 470 similarly selected household respondents. Although the two methods did not differ significantly in terms of response rates, codeability of data, or reporting on sensitive issues, they did differ somewhat in interview length and the sex composition of the samples obtained.     

THE EFFECTS OF APPLICANTs' REACTIONS TO COGNITIVE ABILITY TESTS AND AN ASSESSMENT CENTER

Manufacturing applicants' perceptions of two selection devices were examined. In Study 1, applicants ( n = 3,984) completed cognitive ability tests and a survey of reactions. In Study 2, a subset of applicants from Study 1 ( n = 194) participated in an assessment center and completed the survey. Applicants reacted favorably to the procedures but viewed the assessment center as more face valid than the cognitive tests. Applicants who perceived the selection techniques more favorably were also more satisfied with the selection process, the job, and the organization. Although applicants' perceptions of the procedures were related to job acceptance intentions, applicants' liking of the job and organization explained the largest unique variance. In future studies, applicants' job acceptance intentions and attitudes toward the job and organization should be assessed before and after administration of selection devices; not controlling for prior impressions resulted in overestimation of the contribution of applicants' perceptions of selection procedures.     

Evaluating Competence: Effects of Sex, Marital Status, and Parental Status

Three hundred sixty eight female and male college students read a completed job application and an article written by the applicant. Both the job and the article were in non-sex-typed fields. The applicant was described as either female or male, single or married, and having one or no children. Subjects answered eight evaluative questions concerning the competence of the applicant and the merits of the article. Females were devalued by both male and female subjects, but particularly by males. Applicants of both sexes who were married and childless were evaluated more favorably than applicants who were single and had a child.     

Selecting Job-Content Versus Job-Context Information: A Field Study of the Roles of Need for Closure and Prior Preferences

A field study was conducted in a job-interview setting among female secretarial job applicants with previously expressed preferences for receiving information either about job content or about job context. The results showed that (a) under high as opposed to low need for closure, job applicants requested more job information, whether for job content or job context; (b) across experimental conditions, subjects preferred job-context information; (c) high need for closure selectively reduced the job-context information requested by applicants who had expressed a preference for job-content characteristics as compared with subjects who had expressed a preference for job-context characteristics, but it did not reduce the need for job-content information of applicants with a job-context preference; and (d) under high need for closure, job applicants who had previously expressed a preference for job-content characteristics did, in fact, perceive job-content information as more important than job-context information, and subjects who had expressed a preference for job-context type of characteristics perceived job-context characteristics as more important.     

At the doorstep to employment: Discrimination against immigrants as a function of applicant ethnicity,job type,and raters' prejudice

This study examined the impact of applicant ethnicity, job type, and prejudice on evaluation biases and intentions to interview in an experimental simulation. We suggest that bias and discrimination are more likely when foreign applicants who belong to disliked ethnic groups apply for jobs that require high interpersonal skills, and when raters are prejudiced against immigrants. Subjects were Swiss university students who evaluated Swiss, Spanish, and Kosovo Albanian fictitious applicants. Foreign applicants were second‐generation immigrants, i.e., Swiss‐born descendants of immigrants. Thus, all applicants had similar schooling and language proficiencies but differed with respect to ethnicity. As predicted, discrimination was only observed for members of the disliked ethnic group (Kosovo Albanian) and not for members of the well‐accepted group (Spanish). Moreover, this discrimination was only apparent when applying for a job requiring high interpersonal skills and not when applying for a job requiring high technical skills. Symbolic prejudice towards second‐generation immigrants interacted with applicant ethnicity and job type to affect evaluations of foreign applicants: Persons high in symbolic prejudice devalued foreign applicants belonging to the disliked group but only when applying for a job requiring high interpersonal skills. Overt prejudice was unrelated to evaluations and intentions to interview. These results suggest that discrimination against immigrants is highly specific, targeting only members of certain ethnic groups who apply for certain types of jobs. Moreover, evaluation biases may be more apparent in raters who are prejudiced. Thus, our results support the notion that discrimination for employment results from a complex interaction between characteristics of the applicant, the job, and the rater.     

The Nature of Stereotypes II: A Multiple-Process Model of Evaluations1

A model integrating 3 theoretical perspectives regarding how stereotypes influence person perception was tested. The theories included evaluative extremity theories, assumed characteristics theory, and expectancy violation theory. Predictions were assessed by manipulating the ethnicity, personal appearance, and speech style of target job applicants. These applicants were rated by 109 judges. Results showed that: (a) Judges evaluated job applicants far more on the basis of their personal appearance and speech style than on the basis of their ethnicity; (b) the range of evaluations of African American applicants was larger than the range of evaluations of White applicants; and (c) overall, judges evaluated the African American applicants more favorably than the White applicants. Results strongly supported the model integrating the 3 theories. We discuss the applicability of the model to other research and naturalistic situations.