Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A new study published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences finds that the attractiveness of interviewees can significantly bias outcome in hiring practices, showing a clear distinction between the attractive and average looking interviewees in terms of high and low status job packages offered.
“When someone is viewed as attractive, they are often assumed to have a number of positive social traits and greater intelligence,” say Carl Senior and Michael J.R. Butler, authors of the study. “This is known as the ‘halo effect’ and it has previously been shown to affect the outcome of job interviews.” The study explored the influence of the halo effect in a mock job negotiation scenario where male and female interviewers were shown pictures of attractive or average looking male and female job applicants.
A new study published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences finds that the attractiveness of interviewees can significantly bias outcome in hiring practices, showing a clear distinction between the attractive and average looking interviewees in terms of high and low status job packages offered.
“When someone is viewed as attractive, they are often assumed to have a number of positive social traits and greater intelligence,” say Carl Senior and Michael J.R. Butler, authors of the study. “This is known as the ‘halo effect’ and it has previously been shown to affect the outcome of job interviews.” The study explored the influence of the halo effect in a mock job negotiation scenario where male and female interviewers were shown pictures of attractive or average looking male and female job applicants.
I am sure there are so many people that have been hired for a great job was not due to their experience but due to their external appearance.
I think there is evidence to support attractive people as being better employees vs. ugly people, and vice versa. IMO a lot of unkept "ugly" people may have a tendency to be lazy. If your too lazy to keep your weight manageable and keep your clothes clean/neat, then why would put extra effort into your job?
There are some ugly people who are well kept and very responsibly with their own body and image. In this case, I think its only in rare occasions that they might be considered "ugly" still. If that is the case, then its sad. Of course people want to surround themselves with good looking people. If the job involves sales or something, then the attractiveness of the employees can make a huge difference.
A new study published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences finds that the attractiveness of interviewees can significantly bias outcome in hiring practices, showing a clear distinction between the attractive and average looking interviewees in terms of high and low status job packages offered.
“When someone is viewed as attractive, they are often assumed to have a number of positive social traits and greater intelligence,” say Carl Senior and Michael J.R. Butler, authors of the study. “This is known as the ‘halo effect’ and it has previously been shown to affect the outcome of job interviews.” The study explored the influence of the halo effect in a mock job negotiation scenario where male and female interviewers were shown pictures of attractive or average looking male and female job applicants.
I am sure there are so many people that have been hired for a great job was not due to their experience but due to their external appearance.
I think this has been long known...there was a study some time back, (I'm sure if I spent time I could find it), that said something about taller people getting more advantages, as well. Utter garbage if you ask me. Not my fault I'm short.
If anyone deserves to be unemployed (and I wouldn't wish unemployment on my worst enemy), it's the people who do these stupid studies.
Hahah!
I wonder how many of these types of studies....kinda like...what the heck is the point of this and what can this study do to make anything better in our Country or world....... Do our tax dollars go towards.........?
I really hate that looks play such an important part in the process. Over the years, I've definitely come across some people who are pretty that aren't good at their jobs for whatever reason. They have a bad attitude, they don't know what they're talking about, etc. But also, I have a friend who people make fun of because of how he looks (he's not even that unattractive, but I've heard people call him a monkey, etc.) and he knows he's not the most attractive guy, but he's very good at what he does.
But since it is what it is, and I'm in a field where looks are pretty important, I do everything I can to make sure I'm going to the gym, keeping my hair neat and waxing my eyebrows where necessary. I don't like it, and believe me, I'm glad I work from home and can dress however I want. But when it comes time to play the part, I've just gotta suck it up and do it.
Not surprised. A lot of companies worry about their "image". Employees are a respresentation of that image. How do you think a company wants to be perceived? Fat, short, and ugly? Or fit, tall, and good looking?
If anyone deserves to be unemployed (and I wouldn't wish unemployment on my worst enemy), it's the people who do these stupid studies.
Please explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasershen111
Hahah!
I wonder how many of these types of studies....kinda like...what the heck is the point of this and what can this study do to make anything better in our Country or world....... Do our tax dollars go towards.........?
If it is known and the cause is known interviewer training can be conducted to try to mitigate it.
Just like racial and gender biases in interviewing.
I know in the interviewer training that my old consulting firm offered they discussed things like; halo effect, leniancy bias, severity bias, central tendency, etc. in the rating process. If someone is made aware of an implicit bias they can try to mitigate its impact.
Again your same statement could be said for racial and gender bias. Why study it? Can a study that proves that racial bias exists actually make anything in the country better? No....but it can make people aware. Awareness is the first step to change.
I shouldn't have to explain anything, but no one should be paid a dime (nor should anyone be paying a dime) just to have what everyone already knows reinforced.
I shouldn't have to explain anything, but no one should be paid a dime (nor should anyone be paying a dime) just to have what everyone already knows reinforced.
You do realize human behavior is not stagnant....correct? What was known 30 years ago can change.
For example, 50 years ago racial discrimination in hiring was completely common place. Should we stop studying that? I mean everyone already knows....right?
Could societal changes have had an impact on racial discrimination in the hiring process over the past 50 years?
If I follow your logic.....we already know racial discrimination happens all the time, a study discovered this 50 years ago. Why reinforce it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
