Ar; LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE F950! 0 171994 , _ mefif‘fi is 22 A m &1052003 3 3012 2 __ MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Inaitution - cmma-oi AN EXAMINATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF APPLICANT WEIGHT AND APPLICANT GENDER IN THE CONTEXT OF A SELECTION DECISION By Gail Ellen Sype A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department Of Management 1 993 Advisor: Dr. Stanley Stark Department Of Management ABSTRACT AN EXAMINATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF APPLICANT WEIGHT AND APPLICANT GENDER IN THE CONTEXT OF A SELECTION DECISION By Gail Ellen Sype Research on physical attractiveness and obesity indicates that unattractive individuals are generally are viewed negatively, with the Obese additionally seen as responsible for their undesirable condition. Past research indicates that respondents rate the unattractive more harshly; these results are found, however, in situations (e. g. , evaluations of photographs) which are very different from realistic interviews. This study uwd a video stimulus to test hypotheses from both bodies of literann‘e. It was hypothesized that obese applicants would be less preferred as coworkers, less likely to be hired, less likely to be offered managerial positions, offered lower salaries, and be viewed as having lower likelihood of success. It was additionally hypothesized that these results would be more pronounced for the female than the male. Subject were 295 graduate student raters at a midwestern university. Raters reviewed a videotape described as a ”video resume,” which presented either a male or a female candidate, whose image was either unaltered (average-weight candidates) or whose image hadbecnwidened(viamodificafimofmcvideocamem)mcrcatemepercepfionofan "obesity.” Candidate qualifications were held constant across all conditions. Subjects rated the candidate on sixteen measures of coworker desirability; they a series of 32 semantic differential items; made hiring decisions, salary allocation choices, and provided qualitative descriptions of the candidates’ strengths, weaknesses, and their rationales for hiring choices made. Results indicated that raters did not view the obese candidates more negatively as coworkers. The average-weight male candidate was viewed as having significantly greater likelihood of success than the other candidates. Respondents did not evidence greater unwillingness to hire an obese individual; rather, they were most likely to refuse to hire the average-weight female candidate. Respondents were significantly less likely to assign the obese female candidate to a supervisory job. The overweight female candidate also received more negative comments regarding her appearance than did either of the other three. The overweight male was not evaluated any differently than the average-weight male. Results also indicated that raters were more likely to view females as overweight than males at both levels of weight (altered and unaltered). Copyright by GAIL ELLEN SYPE 1993 DEDICATION This work is dedicated to: «My mother, and to the memory of my father, who both taught me that smartness was more thanjust a matter of books and formulae; and --To all the people in this world who have felt odd, different, lonely or alone, and have learned to appreciate themselves in mite of (or because of) it. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Any work such as this is a cumulative process; one would like to believe it is all one’s own, but really each of us can only take credit for a little of the brick and mortar on the edifice of science. I am most grateful to those scholars and friends whose assistance and guidance was so valuable as I trowelled my way through this process. First of all, I must thank my dissertation committee members: My thanks first and foremost to Dr. Stanley Stark, my committee chairman, whose intellectual curiosity and passion for knowledge guided this work. Second, many thanks to Dr. David Garner, for whose unfailing patience and scholarly insight I will forever be grateful. And finally, my thanks to Dr. Tracy Dobson, for her quiet wisdom, reasoned commentary, and tmfailingwillingnesstolisten. Mydeepestthankstoallofyou. Second, I must acknowledge my intellectual debt to the Management Department Faculty at MSU, who collectively and individually set a standard of scholarship that I will alwaysbeinaweof. Iampleasedtohavehadtheopportrmitytobenefitfromyour knowledge. ii. Third, I must acknowledge the family and friends who stood behind me through a long and often convoluted process. My thanks to my family for their long-suffering interest in my education and my thanks to all my friends for their long and willing suffering along with me throughout the process! Fourth, I must acknowledge the professional colleagues whose guidance and criticism inme and helped to shape this analysis. Many, many thanks go out to colleagues and staff at Saginaw Valley State University, with special thanks to Dr. Joseph Ofori- Dankwa; thank you all for providing me with intellectual feedback and emotional and practical support. Thanks especially to all the colleagues within the College Of Business who provided guidance, support and feedback; many thanks to the 3rd floor Brown secretaries, Elaine Schnepf, Judy Harper, and Vivian Wressell, who provided patient help and to Mark Miller in computer services who provided such willing technical assistance. My thanks also to the friends and colleagues at Grand Valley State University, especially Dr. Marie McKendall, whose encouragement and support was so welcome. Andfinally,totheGreatSpiritthatinformsandguidestheUniverse:Thanksfor getting me tincugh this one! iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction and Problem Statement Chapter Two: Literature Review: Physical Attractiveness 2.1 Physical Attractiveness Research 2.2 Definition of Physical Attractiveness 2.3 General Stereotype Of the Physically Attractive 2.4 Attitudes Toward the Physically Attractive 2.5 Attractiveness, Sex-Role Stereotyping, and Job Type 2.5.1 Gender and Physical Attractiveness 2.6 In-Field Tests of the Influence Of Physical Athactivness 2.7 Practical Implications 2.8 Theoretical Implications 2.9 Limitations of Theory and Research 2.9.1 Lack Of Stimulus Realism 2.9.2 Lack of Clear Definition Of Attractiveness 2.9.3 Interaction Between Gender and Physical Attractiveness iv 10 16 19 24 26 30 31 31 33 V 2.9.4 Job-Related Impact of Physical Attractiveness Chapter Three: Obesity: Research Findings 3.1 Definition of Obesity 3 .2 Attitudes Toward the Obese 3.3 Employment-Related Attitudes Toward the Obese 3.4 Correlates of Stigmatization of the Obese 3.5 Causes and Consequences of the Stigmatization of Obesity 3.6 Prejudice Against the Obese: General Conclusions Chapter Four: Obesity Discrimination and the Law 4.1 Status of Obesity as a Characteristic Protected by Law 4.2 General Appearance Standards 4.3 Appearance Standards Related to Employee Weight 4.4 Legal Protection for the Obese Chapter Five: Research Issues and Hypotheses 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Hypotheses Chapter Six: Methodology 6.1 Goals of the Research 6.2 Subjects in the Sample 33 35 35 35 38 42 44 48 50 50 51 54 58 62 62 63 67 67 68 vi 6.3 The Experimental Design 70 6.3.1 The Experimental Manipulation: Independent Variables 71 6.3.2 The Experimental Conditions 85 6.3.3 The Dependent Variables 98 6.3.4 Rater Demographics 111 6.4 Research Design Summary 117 mm: Assessment of Hypotheses: Quantitative Results 119 7.1 Introduction 119 7.2 Assessment of Hypotheses 119 7.2.1 Assessment of Hypothesis One 119 7.2.2 Assessment of Hypothesis Two 123 7.2.3 Assessment of Hypothesis Three 131 7.2.4 Assessment of Hypothesis Four 132 7.2.5 Assessment of Hypothesis Five 135 7.2.6 Assessment of Hypothesis Six 136 7.3 Possible Influences on Ratings Obtained 137 7.3.1 Manipulation Checks 137 7 .4 Possible Covariates with Ratings 144 7 .5 Rater Self-Assessments and Their Relationship to Ratings 149 7.6 Summary 156 vii Chapter Eight: Rater Descriptions of the Stimulus Candidates 157 8.1 Introduction 157 8.2 Semantic Differential Scale Ratings 157 8.2.2 Qualitative Description of Candidates 168 8.2.2.1 Adjectival Personality Descriptors 168 8.2.2.2 Adjectival Work History Descriptors 179 8.3 Descriptions of Candidates’ Strengths and Weaknesses 187 8.4 Rationale for Job Choice 210 8.5 Summary 219 Chapter Nine: Discussion 221 9.1 Overview 221 9.2 Discussion of Results 221 9.3 Theoretical Significance of the Results 222 9.4 Gender Differences in Appearance Evaluation 223 9.5 Practical Significance of the Results 226 9.6 Possible Moderators of Prejudice Against the Unattractive 227 9.6.1 Length of Contact 227 9.6.2 Changing Attitudes Toward Obesity 228 9.6.3 Skill Level of the Applicant 229 viii 9.7 Significance of the Methodology Used in the Current Study 9.8 Limitations of the Present Research 9.8.1 The Measurement Instrument 9.8.2 Social Desirability Response Bias 9.8.3 Possible Regional Influences 9.8.4 The Evaluative Context 9.8.5 Operationalization of Obesity 9.9 Directions for Future Research Appendix A: Summary of Intercorrelations Among Measures of Coworker Desirability Appendix B: Intercorrelations Among Rater Semantic Differential Items Appendix C: Intercorrelations Among Rater and Candidate Semantic Differential Items Appendix D: Intercorrelations Among Candidate Semantic Differential Items Appendix E: Rationale For Job Choice: Candidate A (Average-Weight Male) Appendix F: Rationale For Job Choice: Candidate B (Average-Weight Female) Appendix G: Rationale for Job Choice: Candidate C (Overweight Male) Appendix H: Rationale for Job Choice: Candidate D (Overweight Female) Bibliography 230 231 231 231 232 232 233 234 236 241 245 249 263 268 275 280 286 ix LIST OF TABLES IABLE 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Pregnancies of Respondent Location Influence of Location on Rater Assessments Distribution of Males and Females by Experimental Condition Frequency of Respondents’ Obesity Subjects’ Educational Attainment Raters’ Work Experience Frequencies of Business/Non—Business Majorsin Rating Pool Respondents’ Soda-Economic Status Hiring Recommendations by Raters MANOVA Results: Questions 1—16 (Measures of Coworker Desirability) Comparisons of Summed Mean Values Across Items 1—16 Ratings of Candidate Likelihood of Success Hiring Recommendations by Raters Candiwe Salary by Condition Ratings of Canfidate Weight 105 106 111 113 114 114 115 117 121 125 130 131 134 135 139 TABLE I6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 32 33 Frequency of Assessments of Candidate Weight Respondents’ Assessment of Candidate Education Respondents’ Assessment of Candidate Experience Assessment of Demographic Covariates Responses to Rater Semantic Differential Items Means and Standard Deviations of Semantic Differential Scale Summary of Adjective Descriptors: Personality Summary of Adjective Descriptors: Work History Summary of Candidates’ Strengths Summary of Candidates’ Weaknesses Job Hire and Why Summary: "Would Not Hire" Job Hire and Why Summary: "Human Resources Benefits Analyst” Job Hire and Why Summary: "Sales Representative“ Job Hire and Why Summary: "Management Trainee" Summary of Intercorrelations Among Meaures of Coworker Desirability (Items 1-16) Summary of Intercorrelations Among Rater Semantic Differential Items Intermelations Among Rater and Candidate Semantic Differential Items Intercorrelations Among Candidate Semantic Differential Items 141 142 143 146 151 158 185 185 205 205 213 213 214 214 237 242 246 250 LIST OF FIGURES EM 1. Raza and Carpenter (1987) Model 2. Morrow (1990) Model 3 . Candidate Resume 4 - Letter Soliciting Actors 5 , Text of Help Wanted Advertisement 6- Height-Weight Values 7- Pretest Form: Ratings of Actor Attractiveness and Age 8 - Actors’ Pre-Employment Photographs 9 - Instructions to Administrators of Obesity Pretests One and Two 1 0. First Obesity Pretest Form 1 1 - Second Obesity Pretest Form 1 2 - Instructions to Raters Participating in the Experiment 1 3 - Rater’s Consent Form 14 - Experiment Scenario 1 5 - Questionnaire 15 . Instructions to Experiment Administrators 27 29 69 73 74 74 76 77 81 82 82 87 88 89 90 96 xii 33113.1“; 17. Final Script Used in Video 18. Candidate Personality Adjective Descriptors: Positives 19. Candidate Personality Adjective Descriptors: Negatives 20. Candidate Personality Adjective Descriptors: Neutrals 21. Candidate Work History Adjective Descriptors: Positives 22. Candidate Work History Adjective Descriptors: Negatives 23. Candidate Work History Adjective Descriptors: Neutrals 24- Coding Scheme Used for Strength/Weakness Responses 25 - Candidate A (Average-Weight Male): Strengths 26- Candidate B (Average-Weight Female): Strengths 27 - Candidate C (Overweight Male): Strengths 28 - Candidate D (Overweight Female): Strengths 29 - Candidate A (Average-Weight Male): Weaknesses 30 - Candidate B (Average-Weight Female): Weaknesses 3 l - Candidate C (Overweight Male): Weaknesses 32- Candidate D (Overweight Female): Weaknesses 33 - Summary of Rationales for Job Choice "No Hire" 34- Summary of Rationales for Job Choice "Human Resources Benefits Analyst” 35- Summary of Rationales for Job Choice ”Sales Representative" 36- Summary of Rationales for Job Choice "Management Trainee" 97 171 173 174 181 182 183 188 189 191 193 195 197 199 201 203 215 216 217 218 xiii arouse 37. Rationale for Job Choice: Candidate A (Average-Weight Male) 38. Rationale for Job Choice: Candidate B (Average-Weight Female) 39. Rationale for Job Choice: Candidate C (Overweight Male) 40. Rationale for Job Choice: Candidate D (Overweight Female) 263 268 275 280 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT Naomi Wolf, in her book WM (1991), states that "...thirty-three thousand American women told researchers they would rather lose ten to fifteen pounds than achieve any other goal” (p. 10). These women did not want to learn to communicate more effectively with or than their peers; they did not want to increase their personal or organizational productivity; they did not want to achieve a new skill which might benefit themselves or their families or their "significant others. " They wanted to lose weight, to become less rather than different or better. A 1990 Gallup poll (Gallup and Newport, 1990) indicated that the average American woman (height 5 feet, 4 inches, and weight 142 pounds) wanted to be 2 inches taller and weigh 13 pounds less; the average American male (height 5 feet, 10 inches, and weight of l 80 pounds) wanted to be 1 inch taller and weigh 9 pounds less. Fifty-one percent of women and 43 percent of adult men polled considered themselves overweight, while Stunkard (1984) indicated that medically 20% of the population could be classified as obese- Clearly more people (women, especially) consider themselves to be obese than would be so considered by medical standards. Why is body weight such a concern? Why does the popular press (women’s magazines, especially) devote untold pages to diets, exercise regimens, and other measures of calorie control or control of body configuration (Klassen et a1. , 1991)? 2 Because obesity is considered in our society, both literally and figuratively, a "fatal flaw. " Researchers indict obesity as a corollary and causal factor for increased mortality, cardiovascular-renal disease, diabetes mellitus, and digestive diseases (Cahnman, 1968). The avoidance of obesity has also been linked with negative medical outcomes, especially for women; the desire to be thin has been linked with increases in the population suffering from the eating disorders of anorexia nervosa and bulimia (Garner et a1. , 1980). Being fat is a potentially fatal condition, according to many medical authorities (Fitzgerald, 1981), with hypertension, arthritis, and fatty liver disease being among the complications listed. Obesity has social as well as medical impacts. For example, in one study assessing how obesity affects one’s potential for social interaction, Vener, Krupka, and Gerard (l 982) presented the results of a survey of 600 Michigan State University undergraduates. Respondents to this survey indicated that they would be (on average) willing to consider an embezzler, an ex-mental patient, or a cocaine user as a spouse before considering an obese person as a marriage partner. Obesity was apparently viewed by this group as a greatercrimethanbeingacriminal! F atness is apparently a justifiable reason to engage in price discrimination against selected passengers, at least according to Southwest Airlines. In May of 1992 a group 0f N AAFA members (National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance) picketed SouthWeSt Airlines at various terminals around the country because Southwest had on 3 several occasions required several obese passengers to purchase extra tickets in order to complete flights. It is not clear what the level of "fatness" is that triggers Southwest’s determination that one is large enough to require two tickets. Obesity is a stigmatizing condition across a variety of settings. Obese individuals may be required to pay more for travel, for clothing, and for health and life insurance (if they are permitted to purchase insurance at all). In addition, individuals who are obese are bombarded with messages about how undesirable the condition is. The popular media, especially magazines targeted at women, have dramatically increased the number of articles devoted to diet, weight reduction, and exercise (Klassen, Wauer and Cassel, 1 991). These articles serve as ever-present reminders to the obese that how they are is not how they should be. The obese may also be stigmatized in employment and training settings. Salve Regina College expelled student Sharon Russell from its nursing program in the mid-19805 because the faculty considered her a poor role model for patients and too obese to fulfill her practical responsibilities as a nurse. (Russell later won a civil settlement against the college for breach of contract due to the expulsion; Sharon Russell v. Salve Regina College, 649 F. Supp. 391, 406 [D.R.I. 1986] and Russell v. Salve Regina College, 890 F- 2d 484 [lst Cir. 1989]). Despite the concerns expressed by the nursing faculty at Salve Regina, Russell completed her nursing degree at another educational institution and was succeSSfully employed upon her graduation. 4 The Sharon Russell case is one example of discrimination against the obese in terms of access to employment and preparation for employment (Everett, 1990; Rothblum et al., 1990, 1991). The sections which follow describe in greater detail the major findings regarding stereotypes of the physically unattractive and the obese and the discrimination which they encounter. These forms of discrimination provide the background for the present study, which examines the influence of candidate’s physical unattractiveness-- specifically, obesity-upon rater assessments in a simulated employment selection situation. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW: PHYSICAL ATTRACT IVENESS AW Over the past quarter of a century, research interest in the study of physical attractiveness as an influence on social relationships has been sporadic. Initially, it would seem only logical that this topic would be the focus of a wide body of research, given that an individual’s physical attractiveness is often the first and most readily perceivable characteristic that others encounter. The results reviewed herein, however, reflect a body of research which could certainly be broader. Morrow, in a 1990 analysis, noted that (page 46): "The systematic study of physical attractive- ness (PA) has not progressed rapidly because scientists have regarded attractiveness as somehow inappropriate for study. Historically, many have viewed attractiveness as an undemocratic, non- egalitarian, or superficial subject unworthy of attention... Interest in PA began to rise in the late 19605, however, with the recognition of several phenomena related to employment selection practices. " It is true that one’s physical appearance is a likely first source of information about an individual. It should be possible, however, for one’s first impression to be confirmed 01’ r evised based on the acquisition of subsequent information about the individual. However, as Hatfield and Sprecher (1986) note, ”Other information may be more meaningful but far harder to ferret out. " Information that is harder to obtain may be 6 forsaken in favor of more readily available cues such as appearance. lf appearance does not provide a useful cue regarding performance efficiency or effectiveness, however, then using it (consciously or subconsciously) an a predictor of organizational performance may mean that applicants are treated in a discriminatory fashion and organizations are deprived of valuable performance outcomes from employees. The sections which follow summarize the findings regarding the influence of applicant physical attractiveness on workplace decisions, with special focus on the limitations and implications of the findings. 2.2 I: E . . [El . l 5 . Surprising though it may seem, relatively little work has been done regarding the specification of what constitutes physical attractiveness. Much of the work reviewed herein relies on the presentation of what are often described as "yearbook-style” photographs (e.g., Cash et al., 1977). The reader must assume that these are head- -shoulders photographs which are basically tests of facial attractiveness. In their review of research on facial attractiveness, Bull and Rumsey (1988) summarized some Characteristics of facial attractiveness: unattractive faces are more convex and there is greater soft tissue thickness in the lower third of the face; large eyes, small nose and Small Chin are more attractive for females; and the mouth, eyes, hair and nose correlate With Overall ratings of attractiveness (in that order). Bull and Rumsey also noted, however, that much research simply relies on levels of inter-rater agreement to classify 7 stimulus individuals as more or less attractive. Relatively little information is generally provided regarding the specific qualities that lead to the judgment of an individual’s level of physical attractiveness. 2.3 mmmnmmmmmnnmm Within the past twenty years, research conducted regarding physical attractiveness has attempted to test what has often been called the "what is beautiful is good" stereotype. Berscheid and Walster, in their 1974 review of the literature on physical attractiveness up to that time, identified this stereotype and described its pervasive impact, with the philosophy that ”what is beautiful is good" apparently being held not only in interpersonal contexts (dating and social attraction in general) but also in contexts such as the classroom and the workplace. These authors found a general preference for attractive rather than unattractive individuals, with the influence of raters’ physical attractiveness stereotypes be<=onring more potent the greater the stimulus person’s level of physical attractiveness. According to the stereotype identified by Berscheid and Walster, attractive individuals were (and are) seen as warmer, kinder, more responsive, sensitive, interesting, strong, modest, sociable, and outgoing. Even at that early date they identified emerging “fierences in stereotypes of physically attractive individuals depending upon the stimulus Per-‘80:! ’5 gender. Females, for example, were depicted as more "submissive. " An chlitional finding was that individuals who were low in physical attractiveness were pet‘Q‘fiived as having more external rather than internal locus of control. That is, the 8 attractive were often seen as the ”masters of their fate; " the unattractive were perceived to be coerced by events in their environment or by the people around them (p. 171). Much of the research related to physical attractiveness has attempted to identify what influence, if any, physical attractiveness has on social interactions such as the forming of intimate relationships, the sequence of activities involved in interviewing and selection decisions, and its influence on interactions within the social-service and educational systems. The following review will focus primarily on research regarding the role of physical attractiveness as it influences decisions made in the employment selection process. le'lIllEI'l15' It should be noted that the effect of physical attractiveness upon raters’ evaluations is not a simple, unidirectional influence. Physical attractiveness influences raters’ i udgments of men and women differently in that attractiveness interacts with gender to E"'lllilzlllce sex-role perceptions. Attractive women are perceived as more feminine and It'T-“<'=i<:tive men are perceived as more masculine (Gillen, 1981). The fact that attl‘aCtiveness enhances sex—role perceptions may have differential consequences for male Wm female applicants. The research summarized below reviews these factors. Physical attractiveness may extend beyond sex-role perception to have other (1‘ i erfirltial gender-related implications for women. For example, in an analysis of 9 physical attractiveness stereotyping, Bar-Tel and Saxe (1976) described the evidence which had accumulated at that time. They summarized the general physical attractiveness stereotype (physically attractive people are generally seen as having more desirable personality traits, are seen as more intelligent, etc.) and noted that this stereotype was less pronounced for men than for women. They hypothesized at that time that this might be due to differential standards for judgment of men versus women. According to their analysis, historically, men have been judged by more objective standards such as earnings. Women, on the other hand, have traditionally been considered primarily as wives and mothers, and these are tasks for which there are fewer objective criteria. Subjective criteria are thus free to operate, and Bar-Tel and Saxe hypothesized that appearance might have functioned as a "proxy" measure of other relevant characteristics Such as personal warmth or parenting ability. These indicators apparently continue to be used despite the availability of other, more salient cues, such as measures of education, income attainment, intelligence, and job skill. Following the earlier-cited review by Berscheid and Walster (1974), there emerged a Steam of research related to the influence of attractiveness upon employment selection. In one study a test was conducted to assess the effect of (a) gender, (b) applicants’ appearance (facial appearance only, since head-and-shoulders photographs were used as the appearance stimuli), and (c) the effect of differing levels of scholastic performance upon the ratings and rankings of these individuals by male interviewers and male graduate mdents (Dipboye, Fromkin and Wiback, 1975). Each participant reviewed 12 a - I)1311<:ations and was asked to rate each resume and provide a rank ordering of the 10 applicants. The applications varied in terms of the applicants’ academic background (three levels), gender, and levels of physical attractiveness (two levels). Physical attractiveness did have a significant effect on the ratings and rankings of applicants. However, while it accounted for 6% of the variance in ratings and 9% of the variance in rankings, scholastic record accounted for 33 % and 38% respectively. This study has been praised for its use of actual interviewers to generate results which may be more readily generalizable to the population. Beehr and Gilmore (1982) tested the influence of applicant attractiveness upon selection of management trainees. The authors classified jobs as being either attractiveness-irrelevant or attractiveness-relevant. Examples of the latter are personnel Counselor and personnel interviewer because these are jobs where there is face-to—face Contact with other individuals). Applicants were classed as high or low in attractiveness. Attractive applicants were preferred for the jobs where attractiveness was deemed relevant. Overall attributions were not, however, more positive for attractive applicants. All photos reviewed were of mles. Since the literature indicates that the physical E‘tI-Zt‘clctiveness stereotype operates less dramatically for males than for females, these res‘JJts do not seem surprising. 11! general, increasing levels of attractiveness are positively related to sex-role e()typmg. As women move out of female-dominated occupations and into J0bS which 11 are male-dominated or gender-neutral in nature, the extent to which a woman is perceived as "feminine" may also affect perceptions of her ability to "fit” and perform effectively in a male-dominated or gender-neutral job. In studies assessing the relationship between attractiveness and sex-role stereotyping and decisions regarding candidates’ suitability for jobs considered masculine, feminine, or gender-neutral, the following results have been obtained: Cash, Gillen and Burns (1977) used personnel consultants as subjects in a study evaluating applicants for employment. They found that physically attractive candidates were generally preferred over unattractive ones, with sex-role stereotyping playing a role: males were generally more positively evaluated as candidates for jobs which were seen as " masculine" or "neutral” in terms of their content. Subjects were also asked to assess the candidate’s probability of success or failure within each job and to rate the causes of Such outcomes (subjects could choose ability, effort, task difficulty, or luck). Utlatlractive employees were seen as less responsible than attractive employees for negative outcomes on neutral or within-sex-role occupations. The subjects apparently felt that attractive persons were more suited or "matched" to their jobs and therefore that any negative outcomes would reflect more directly upon the individual’s abilities. Hypothesizmg that physical attractiveness would influence sex—role perceptions, but that these perceptions would influence raters differently depending upon the fit between the applicant and the job applied for, Hellman and Saruwatari (1979) assessed the lIlirlllence of physical appearance and gender relative to the type of job for which the ll‘Lt1i\?i(lual is applying. They found results somewhat different from the general 12 preference for the physically attractive, and more in line with the findings of Dipboye et al. (1977). On the one hand, Heilman and Saruwatari’s (1979) found that subjects preferred male applicants who were physically attractive regardless of the type of job being applied for. Women who were physically attractive, on the other hand, were preferred only when they were applicants for "feminine” (in this case, nonmanagerial) jobs. When an attractive women applied for a ”masculine" (managerial) job, her attractiveness apparently worked to her disadvantage. Heilman and Saruwatari (1979) hypothesized that attractiveness exaggerated the gender-related attributes of the candidates and thus may have influenced the evaluators’ perceptions of the degree of ”fit" between the applicant and the job. In a further analysis of the relationship between physical attractiveness and sex-role Mceptions, Gillen (1981) attempted to refine the stereotype by confirming that observers attl‘i bute to the physically attractive existence of two types of goodness: gender-relevant and gender-irrelevant. Gender-relevant goodness consists of positive characteristics which are considered to be in-sex-role, e.g. , characteristics deemed appropriate for males or females but not for both. Gender-irrelevant goodness consists of positive characteristics which are desirable for both males and females (p. 277). Subjects analyzed photos of blacks and whites which had previously been rated as low, moderate, or high in physical attl‘activeness. For masculine but not feminine occupations, males were perceived as more qualified than females and attractive males were seen as more qualified than less at“. Ctive males. For feminine but not masculine occupations, females were seen as more 13 qualified than males and attractive females seen as more qualified than less attractive women. For gender-neutral occupations, attractive individuals of both genders were seen as more qualified than less attractive individuals. It was hypothesized that if physical attractiveness affected ratings by influencing sex-role perceptions, making sex—role information explicit might reduce or eliminate this influence by providing directly the information for which attractiveness had been taken as an indirect indicator. Jackson (1983a) tested this theory by giving raters explicit sex role information (i.e. , levels of masculinity, femininity, or androgyny) as part of an applicant’s ”self—description" along with work experience data. The presumption was that such explicit information about masculinity/ femininity would reduce the reduce the influence of the physical attractiveness stereotype for employment in sex-role—linked (gender-specific) occupations. This result was generally obtained, with physical attl‘activeness having an impact primarily upon selection for sex-neutral occupations. HOWever, an effect of attractiveness upon starting salary was found, with attractive individuals being offered a higher starting wage. Jackson hypothesized that this might haVe been due to raters’ assumptions that attractive applicants have more options available to them and thus require larger inducements to affiliate with an organization. Jackson (1983b) also tested the hypothesis that attractiveness might have differential sequences for women than for men. She asked personnel consultants to revrew the a - I)I)ll<:ations of supposed employees and provided them with photographs accompanied by 14 the stimulus person’s masculinity/femininity self-impression questionnaire, resume and academic record. Subjects were asked to evaluate their stimulus individual in the context of four decisions: being sent to a special training program, being assigned a routine or challenging job, receipt of a promotion, or a leave for child care duties. For each decision a masculine, feminine and a gender-neutral occupation was specified. Results (Jackson, 1983b) did not support the hypothesis: facial appearance was unrelated to either gender-linked or gender-neutral occupations. She suggested that this might have been due to the complexity of the ratings task, which may have confused subjects, since they were asked to evaluate a single individual against multiple placement and job options. In a further study of the relationship between attractiveness and sex-role perceptions, Riegelhaupt (1984) found that subjects who reviewed ostensible personnel credentials accompanied by photographs provided ratings which demonstrated sex—role and attl‘activeness stereotypes. Subjects were asked to rate an applicant’s suitability for a 11iii-Sculine, feminine, or neutral sex-stereotyped position. Each subject was also asked to i‘:‘(j~i<:ate his or her attributions regarding the possible causes of success or failure for the applicant. Subjects within the sample generally viewed male applicants as more desirable than female applicants, with the limitation that females were seen as more appropriate than males for ”feminine" jobs. Attractive applicants were viewed as more desirable as e“It’loyees than unattractive applicants, being seen as more qualified, more likely to S"IQCeed, worthy of stronger hiring recommendations, and deserving of higher salaries. 15 Heilnmn and Stopeck (1985) studied the influence of attractiveness and gender upon workplace action, this time in the context of performance evaluation. Subjects were asked to conduct mock performance-based evaluations and to recommend personnel actions. The outcomes recommended by the subjects indicated they were more negatively disposed toward attractive women in managerial positions. Attractive females in nonmanagerial positions were evaluated more positively. It is interesting to note, however, that this study found no effect of attractiveness upon the evaluations of males regardless of the position held by the individual. In a related analysis, Heilman and Stopeck (1985) asked subjects to make attributions regarding the causes of success of a corporate assistant vice president. Subjects reviewed data on a vice president who was either male or female, attractive or unattractive, and who had risen through the firm either at a "normal" or an unusually rapid pace. Males who were attractive received higher attributions of ability; females who were attractive received lower attributions of skill. Later research by Heilman et al. (1989) confirmed earlier findings regarding 1 2:1 Ceptions of male and female managers, reporting that males are rated as more similar to " successful managers” than are females. Only when females were explicitly indicated H " Successful managers” did the ratings ascribed to them rise to levels comparable to 08% achieved by males. 16 In a subsequent study of the influence of physical attractiveness upon promotion decisions, Morrow et al. (1990) found a small favorable bias toward attractive candidates. Applicant sex was found to have no influence within this sample but rater age was related to rater recommendations, with younger raters being more lenient. In discussing their finding that applicant gender was not an influential variable, Morrow et al. noted that results indicating a relationship between gender and attractiveness (such as the results found by Heilman and her colleagues; 1979, 1984, 1985, 1989) may not be expected to persist into the future. Rather, they contended that the effect may have been a "cohort artifact” which will disappear as decision makers within organizations try to make gender 3 factor irrelevant to selection decisions. 2.1.1 Wis Despite the optimism of Morrow et al. (1990, p.15) that gender bias will be ez—adicated from future decision-making, gender has certainly not been irrelevant as an element impacting the influence of physical attractiveness on the selection process in nag research. In one test of the impact of stimulus gender, it was hypothesized that rater chal‘acteristics might also influence reactions to individuals possessing differential levels of physical attractiveness. Dipboye, Arvey and Terpstra (1977) analyzed the influence of gender and of both raters’ and ratees’ physical attractiveness upon the evaluations of aI)'I)li<:ant resumes. Male and female student interviewers, rated as high, moderate or low In athactiveness, evaluated twelve bogus job applicants for whom grades, level of 17 physical attractiveness (three levels), and qualifications had been varied. Attractive males were more highly rated than attractive females, and highly—qualified males were preferred over highly-qualified females. The effects of attractiveness were more pronounced for candidates with low levels of qualification than for more highly-qualified candidates, but even within the highly-qualified candidate pool, attractive individuals were preferred over less attractive candidates. Attractiveness of the stimulus person was positively related to the subjects’ willingness to hire and to the salary offered to the applicant. Highly qualified males were selected more frequently than highly qualified females. It was noted, however, that the greatest bias against female applicants was shown when the stimuli were highly attractive or unattractive; it was less pronounced when the female applicants were moderately attractive. In another assessment of the influence of rater characteristics upon ratings, Snyder, Berscheid, and Matwychuk (1988), found partial support for the influence of applicant physical attractiveness within the context of a selection decision. In studies which varied m the job-appropriateness of an applicant’s appearance and later both appearance and personality dimensions, it was found that subjects who were high on the personality trait 0f Self—monitoring (i.e. , individuals who attempted to modify themselves to fit within each new situation) stressed the job—appropriateness of an applicant’s appearance to a g1wealth-r extent than did subjects who were low on this dimension. In a study of the influence of applicant gender upon stimulus ratings, Then (1986) e: xamjned student subjects’ reactions to stimulus individuals who differed in terms of 18 qualifications (though all were highly qualified) and physical attractiveness (attractive, average, unattractive) and found that unattractive women received the lowest ratings of all stimuli. Males, both in general and at each level of attractiveness, were rated as having more potential for promotion than females. Contrary to earlier findings, however, attractive women were rated as having more promotion potential than women who were deemed average or unattractive. This stands in direct contrast to the results generally found by Heilman et al. and others, which suggested that attractive women were viewed as less desirable candidates for non-sex-stereotyped jobs. Confirming earlier results, Then (1986) also found that physically attractive individuals were also generally seen as more sex-role stereotyped, i.e. , attractive males were seen as more masculine and attractive females were seen as more feminine. Testing the influence of physical attractiveness in the interview context, Gilmore, Beehr and Love (1986) found that the applicant’s physical attractiveness had the broadest infl uence on employment decisions of both student subjects and professional employment interviewers. There was no main effect for gender; however, professional recruiters were fOIJnd to be biased in favor of female applicants, while student evaluators were not. In an assessment of the influence of applicant gender upon evaluations of male and fe I3Ilale applicants by interviewers, Riggio and Throckmorton (1988) found that applicants’ physical appearance had a significant influence on raters’ evaluations of male applicants. egl‘esswn analyses indicated that applicants who gave posmve verbal responses, avorded 19 verbal errors, and were well dressed were evaluated more positively by raters. Physical attractiveness of males contributed significantly to the variance explained, while for female applicants’ evaluations were influenced by their perceived verbal fluency. The results obtained above may generate some cause for concern among those individuals who desire the creation of true equal employment opportunity within our society. Equal access for men and women to employment opportunities would seem problematic if gender and sex-role stereotyping still continue (as the results above would indicate). In an attempt to reduce the influence of physical attractiveness upon employment selection, Cann, Siegfried and Pearce (1981) conducted an experiment designed to "dispel" the physical attractiveness stereotype. Subjects reviewing the files of job candidates were asked to postpone a decision until after specific qualifications had been considered. Overall hiring decisions were not affected by the order in which evaluators rated qualifications and hiring preferences. Physical atrractiveness and gender did influence the hiring decision, with male and attractive applicants being preferred. In this case, even a concerted attempt to reduce the influence of the "what is beautiful is good " stereotype did not have the desired impact. M ,I- °I “i- 0, 151]. ‘.I.‘ I .’_I ill- '1‘ Much of the research summarized above has been conducted with college students (gl‘aduate or undergraduate students) as raters. While this fact does not necessarily i - . . . . nvalldate the findings, it does mean that the results obtained cannot be generalized to the 20 real employment setting with a great deal of confidence. Tests of the influence of physical attractiveness in more realistic settings are desirable to confirm whether such results hold for the general population. Sparacino (1980) assessed the relationship between the attractiveness of a group of males (based on ratings of their university graduation photographs and on photographs taken 25 years later) and the men’s occupational prestige scores and final levels of educational attainment. He found no indication that the more attractive men excelled over the less attractive ones; in fact, the correlations between attractiveness at graduation and the above measures were negative (although of little practical significance, since both correlations were at or under .12). An assessment of the influence of attractiveness on job performance yielded results contrary to those reported by Sparacino (1980). Ross and Ferris (1981) studied several 11 undred male employees in two accounting organizations. In one firm they found that independently rated employee physical attractiveness had a significant relationship with sapervisors’ ratings of the employees’ "personal effectiveness, " but not with salary or measures of technical or performance effectiveness. In the second firm, attractiveness was nearly significant (p < .10) as an influence on the estimated likelihood of being ofiered a partnership, but no other significant relationships were found. Ross and Ferris noted that they were surprised that photo attractiveness did not demonstrate more i“t‘1:1‘--lence on evaluations, but also commented that very few tests of the effects of physical u a'ittiveness have been conducted in field settings. 21 In a study of the responses of experienced male and female interviewers to a group of eight job applicants for a clerk-typist position (Greenwald, 1981), subjects were asked to indicate their willingness to consider hiring each individual. Information provided to subjects included a photo (facial stimulus only) on an application form, varying levels of employment experience, and an audio cassette which was intended to indicate the applicant’s level of ”social performance. " (Ostensible applicants responded to questions such as ”Tell me about yourself" and ”Why do you want to work here?”) Finding no effect for attractiveness, Greenwald hypothesized that this might have been due to the fact that earlier work might have used more extreme levels of physical attractiveness. It may also be that the individual’s appearance was not considered relevant to the job (clerk-typist) or that appearance has less impact when other information is available. It has also been hypothesized that an individual’s level of physical attractiveness might be influential only at lower skill levels. At higher skill levels, presumably there are other performance cues beyond appearance which might be better predictors of performance. In a test of this theory, Boor, Wartman and Reuben (1983) examined the effect of applicant attractiveness on what could be deemed a relatively high-skilled job, " medical residency, " and found it to have no effect. The authors used actual faculty I“'=‘>‘:illgs of applicants within a "stande selection interview” and related this information to I‘Elljngs of the applicants’ photographs and observations of the applicants’ behavior by .. IVaceptionists. " While ratings of attractiveness did not significantly relate t9 the final Mg, ratings of neatness and grooming did for female candidates. Boo: et al. (1983) 22 commented that this may indicate that ”physical appearance may have less effect on interview evaluations and subsequent selection decisions than previous research suggests, and professional demeanor may have greater influence on these evaluations than is generally recognized. " In another analysis of the interaction between job skill level and appearance, Waters (1985) varied the nature of the job applied for in a study of the effects of facial appearance. Photographs of eight women were taken before and after "makeovers" (changes in hair coloring, style and cosmetics). Experienced interviewers then reviewed these photographs as accompaniments to resumes. Waters had hypothesized that the greater the level of skill required by the job, the less would be the effect of attractiveness. Resumes were reviewed relative to three levels of job skill, and contrary to expectations, appearance was found to influence the hiring process at all skill levels, although with the greatest influence on the lowest skill level. The relationship between facial attractiveness and academic performance was assessed in a study of graduates of a military service academy. Levels of attractiveness (di mensions of attractiveness not defined) were assessed and compared to academic l3"E-=1‘ll“ormtrnce within the academy and to later outcomes. There was no relationship found between level of attractiveness and performance for the entire sample, nor between attractiveness and level of rank attained 12 years later. Level of attractiveness was found I: o be positively correlated with ability (as measured by academic performance) in a 23 sample of individuals who remained on active duty 12 years after graduation (Dickey-Bryant et al. , 1986). The authors hypothesized that these results might be due to a phenomenon wherein organizations, however unwittingly, foster the development of stereotypes which contribute to the perceived level of "fit" between the individual and the firm. This perceived ”fit” may then influence others’ perceptions and thus others’ reactions; individuals who "look the part of success" may be more likely to remain within the organization and —- perhaps -— may also be more likely to be perceived as successful. In a test of objective rather than rater-generated measures of performance, Umberson and Hughes (1987) found support not only for the ”what is beautiful is good" hypothesis, but apparently for the idea that " good things come to those who are beautiful. " Ratees’ actual self-reports rather than outsiders’ perceptions of success were reviewed. In an analysis of data from 3,692 subjects (collected as part of a representative survey of the U - S. in 1978), the interviewers’ assessments of respondents’ attractiveness were found to be positively related to respondents’ reports of their own achievement and well-being. According to these results, the attractive are not only seen as being ”better,” but in fact I’eI>Olrt higher levels of desirable outcomes. Roszell, Kennedy, and Grabb (1989) studied the relationship between physical =3Jth‘ilctiveness and income attainment among a national sample of employed Canadians. he measure of attractiveness was the rating assigned by the interviewer who conducted the Survey within a given household. The possibility thus exists that different 24 interviewers applied dramatically different criteria in arriving at the same rating of ”strikingly handsome or beautiful. " However, if different definitions of attractiveness were used for different subsegments of the population, this would presumably serve to weaken any detected relationship between attractiveness and income. Results indicated a weak but statistically significant positive relationship between income and attractiveness. Women and younger respondents tended to be rated as more attractive, and attractive respondents also tended to be associated with higher levels of education, higher occupational status, and employment in "predominantly female” jobs (p. 552). When the effects of other variables were controlled for, physical attractiveness was shown to have a positive impact on income attainment for men but not for women. The authors stated that, ”it appears, then, that employment in a ’male’ job could be a precondition for realizing any significant economic returns from physical attractiveness" (p. 554). 241 E . l I l' . Physical appearance apparently does serve as a proxy or initial measure of a person’s "goodness” or "worth. " This is a concern for many investigators because the more popular assumption is that appearance either does not or should not matter, at least in regard to job-related activities where applicant or employee competence is presumed to dominate decision-making. If it could be demonstrated that good-looking people are generally more competent, more intelligent, better suited to lead or supervise, etc. , then D113, Sical appearance would be a cost-effective selection criterion. However, no proof exists of any relationship between physical attractiveness and competence on the job. ac: sex Hel like in and 31a} C0“: Hits 1‘ a: mint 25 Despite the fact that it is not a predictor of competence, physical attractiveness obviously does make a difference in one’s life. To be considered more physically attractive by one’s peers means one may be seen as kinder, more responsive, more sensitive, more interesting, more outgoing and sociable, more intelligent, and the like (Berscheid and Walster, 1974; Bar-Tel and Saxe, 1976; Bull and Rumsey 1988). Those who deem an individual to be more physically attractive are apparently more likely to attribute sex-role potency (females seen as more feminine, males seen as more masculine) to that individual (Gillen, 1981). Individuals who are more attractive: (a) have improved access to employment (though for women this benefit may be more potent when sex-stereotypic positions are considered) (Cash et al., 1977; Dipboye et al., 1977; Heilman and colleagues, 1979, 1985, 1989; Beehr and Gilmore 1982); (b) are more likely to be considered promotable by others (Then, 1986; Morrow et al., 1990); (c) demonstrate higher levels of achievement and well-being (Umberson and Hughes, 1987); and (d) in some instances have demonstrated higher levels of income attainment (Roszell et al, 1989). The functioning of this beneficial mechanism appears to operate differently for men and women, with evidence from several sources (e. g. , Heilman and her colleagues; Riegelhaupt, 1984) indicating that attractiveness benefits men more and that it assists a woman only in circumstances where the she is applying for a job which is seen as appropriate to her gender (i.e. , a sex-role -stereotyped position). In one study mentioned above (Roszell et al. , 1989), such results held even in the area of income attainment for males or within male—dominated jobs. 26 Competitors within the world of work may have justifiable cause for concern, given the importance of the outcomes detailed above. Given that positive outcomes devolve to those who are attractive, it is obviously desirable to be attractive. Given also, however, that there are limits on people’s abilities to be attractive, how, for example, is one to know whether one is ”attractive enough?” How is one to know what the specific dimensions of attractiveness are? Understanding what the dimensions or attractiveness are, and which of these are or are not within individual control, may be critical for success in an increasingly competitive workplace. To analyze these factors will require significant research, such as studies detailing the specific dimensions of attractiveness. To conduct such research in the future also requires an understanding of implications of findings up to the present time and an assessment of the gaps or limitations of the research reviewed herein. 2.811'lll" Raza and Carpenter (1987), in their analysis of hiring preferences in employment interviews, posited a process whereby influences on rater perceptions are the causal factors underlying the bias shown toward the physically attractive. According to this model (see Figure 1), in realistic interview settings interviewers have the opportunity to consider performance-based and experience-related information as well as personal Characteristics such as the applicant’s physical appearance, age, gender and race. These Characteristics of the interviewee will be evaluated by the interviewer against the job type 27 RAZA AND CARPENTER (1987) MODEL OF HIRABILITY (As Described in Morrow, 1990) DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES Sex of Applicant Age of Applicant Sex of Interviewer Age of Interviewer Job Type Attractivenes Likability I ,1? Intelligence Employabilit Hirability L i Skill F fl FIGURE 1 RAZA AND CARPENTER (1987) MODEL 28 and the interviewer’s own preferences to produce an overall measure of applicant attractiveness. This variable of "applicant attractiveness" is presumed to influence the interviewer’s liking for the applicant (referred to in the model as applicant "likability"), which in turn influences the extent to which the interviewer perceives the applicant as intelligent and enrployable. The applicant’s overall levels of employability and skill combine to influence the ”hirability” of the applicant. If this model is accurate, then physically attractive people are offered more employment-related opportunities not because they are good-looking per se, but rather because their looks contribute to the perception that they are likeable and therefore more appealing as employees and coworkers. Morrow (1990) developed a model (see Figure 2) of the selection process which draws from models derived by both Raza and Carpenter (1987) and Umberson and Hughes (1987) (See Figure 2 for a depiction of the model). While her theory does not clarify the level of physical attractiveness which might be necessary for employment applicants to achieve success, it does provide an initial statement of the role that attractiveness may play in the employment selection process. Morrow (1990) contended that physical attractiveness and age can be considered status characteristics which are comparable to gender and race in terms of the pervasiveness of their influence. Status characteristics are those characteristics that have ”differentially elevated states that are associated directly or indirectly with expectation States” (Umberson and Hughes, 1987). Status characteristics are used to assign status to individuals across a wide variety of situations. 29 MORROW (1990) STATUS CHARACTERISTICS THEORY AND EMPLOYMENT SELECTION STATUS CHARACTERISTIC ATTRIBUTES OF RATER Similarity in Status Characteristics Status Characteristic Related Beliefs STATUS CHARACTERISTICS Likability STATIC: SEX RACE DYNAMIC: AGE ‘ j ATTRACTIVENESS ¢ ISELECTION EVALUATIONS EMPLOYABILITY HIRABILITY STARTING SALARY Prior Performance Rater Perceptions or Credentials of Person/Job Fit Status Characteristic Appropriateness Relevancy of Status Characteristic to Job ‘ FIGURE 2 MORROW (1990) MODEL 30 Morrow hypothesized that those high in status characteristics (e.g., someone who is male, white, and/or attractive) will encounter those who hold higher expectations of competence from him and who treat him in ways that reflect these expectations. He or she will then structure self-perception and behaviors to conform to these others’ expectations. On the other hand, individuals who possess low status characteristics (e.g. , female, nonwhite, and/ or unattractive) will encounter lesser expectations and inferior treatment which they use as a basis for their self-perceptions. It is assumed that status characteristics are in some cases (gender, race) static and in other cases (attractiveness, age) dynamic. The model describes the impact of status characteristics as occurring in combination with the rater’s assessment of the individual’s past performance (experience and credentials) and the individual’s likability and ”fit" to the job. 2.21"' [I] IE ! The development of theories such as Morrow’s has been a useful first step in assessing the process whereby physical attractiveness influences assignment of work-related outcomes. However, there are several important gaps affecting understanding of how physical attractiveness affects individuals. 31 2.2.1 Larkfltimuhmllralism First, photographs (of the "applicants" or "trainees" or "candidates”) and resumes or personal histories were the primary stimuli reviewed by subjects in virtually all of the research to date (e.g., Heilman et al, 1979, 1984, 1985; Gillen, 1981; Cann et al. 1981;). Raters generally review ”paper people” and evaluate an individual without any opportunity to hear or see that person. While the results found are not entirely invalidated due to the format of the research, it would be desirable to provide greater realism in the examination of raters’ reactions to differing levels of stimulus physical attractiveness. Even upon a limited acquaintanceship, one has the opportunity to respond to a greater variety of personal cues than can be provided by a single photograph. Bull and Rumsey (1988) summarized extensive research which addressed the dimensions of facial attractiveness and the implications of such attractiveness across different life—spheres such as education, dating, social relations, employment, advertising, and persuasion. They noted that one flaw in this body of research is the lack of studies as to what constitutes facial attractiveness. So while greater knowledge is accumulated regarding the extent of influence of facial attractiveness, relatively little is known about What specifically is considered facially attractive. This is important because much of the 1‘ (march cited has focused (intentionally or not) on facial attractiveness. Within much of this research the level of candidate attractiveness was generally measured by asking raters 32 to rate stimulus photos and then assessing the level of agreement across a group of independent raters. Such photographs are often face-only or head-and-shoulders “yearbook-type" shots which allow only a limited inference about overall applicant appearance. Moreover, in nearly all of these studies, attractiveness is never defined, nor are copies of the stimulus photos ever appended to the published results. It is thus difficult to identify which combination of physical attributes is deemed "attractive" or "unattractive" by raters. The specific dimensions of physical attractiveness, facial and otherwise, at least for the stimulus persons included in these studies, remain open to debate. According to research conducted by Franzoi and Herzog, the aspects used to judge attractiveness, at least within a sample of college students, differ across the genders. Franin and Herzog (1987) asked college students to report on body aspects used to judge male and female attractiveness. Both men and women used upper body strength as the primary measure of male attractiveness and body weight as the primary measure of female attractiveness. While this study is useful as a starting point in the identification of specific aspects of attractiveness, its results may not generalize beyond the college student population (average age of the subjects was 20) from which it is drawn. Certainly it would be desirable to assess perceptions of individuals across a wider range of ages and backgrounds. The possible interaction between gender and physical attractiveness is not clearly understood. Findings from several studies indicate that attractiveness may be more beneficial for men in general more than it is for women in the search for employment (Heilman et al., 1979, 1985). As Morrow and her colleagues (1990) point out, however, as attitudes toward women change, and presumably gender becomes a factor irrelevant to selection decisions, the influence of physical attractiveness in candidate selection may become uniform (which may simply mean that the bias will still exist but will operate similarly for men and women). Additional research is needed to determine whether there are ongoing differences in the application of standards for physical appearance for men versus women. 23.411131” [131°]! . Bull and Rumsey’s (1988) review of the literature on facial attractiveness was an admirable effort; however, it obviously does not encompass all aspects of physical attractiveness and their impact. Social interactions and interpersonal decisions are affected by a wide variety of personal appearance factors in addition to facial appearance. Height, weight, dress, hair color and handicap status (e. g. , hearing—impaired, visually impaired, wheelchair user) are just a few of the possible aspects of physical appearance Which can be used to make judgments about others. The attempt to identify the dimensions of physical attractiveness is especially important because certain aspects of 34 one’s physical self are more mutable than others. An unattractive hairstyle may be quickly and (relatively) inexpensively altered by a visit to a good stylist; an unattractive nose requires a greater investment of time and money, and the endurance of greater physical risk, to be corrected surgically. A missing limb, the inability to see or to hear, or the ability to walk may be virtually unalterable. The extent to which one can (or should) alter one’s hair color, eye color, or one’s body shape or size is open to debate. The consequences of such alteration, in terms of time, cost, or risk to physical or emotional well-being, are also open to debate. Given the influence of such factors on employment selection, however, inquiring minds may well want to know about the risks and hazards to one’s career associated with different aspects of unattractiveness. The aspect of unattractiveness which will be addressed in detail in the next chapter is obesity. (HiAd’FERUTPflUEE OBESITY: RESEARCH FINDINGS 1.1 E E . . E D! . Vener, Krupka, and Gerard, in a 1982 analysis, defined obesity as a condition of having a body weight 20% or more over the standard height-weight tables. At that time, they indicated that 24% of US. women and 14 % of US. men between the ages of 20 and 74 were classified as ”obese” (page 1102). Forty-nine percent of black women and 26% of white women (aged 45-64) whose incomes were below the poverty level were obese, while 40% of black women and 28% of white women in the same age range whose incomes were above poverty level fell into the category. A review of the literature at around the same time contended that the percentages of the US. population technically defined as "obese" was about 25 %-45% of individuals over the age of 30 (Fitzgerald, 1981). 1.2 W In general, to be obese is to be stigmatized. In a variety of situations, the obese have been shown to be negatively regarded. The material which follows examines both general attitudes toward the obese and toward the obese specifically in the area of employment decision-making. In an examination of health care workers’ attitudes toward obese patients, Maddox and Liederman (1969) found a negative bias against obesity. Not only did physicians 35 36 surveyed view obese patients more negatively than the nonobese, they were also more likely to see the obese as undesirable patients. Bagley et al. (1989) found similar results in a survey of nurses, who viewed both obese patients and the task of caring for them more negatively than they did normal weight patients. In an assessment of adolescents’ attitudes toward the obese, DeIong (1980) asked girls (aged 1418) to evaluate peers who were obese vs. those who were not obese. The subjects were given materials to review which included a picture of either an average-weight or an obese female peer, and information attributing the obesity either to a medical condition or indicating that the individual planned to lose weight in the near future. Obese targets were rated less favorably than 'normal"-weight targets, unless an ”excuse” for the obesity (i.e. , the medical condition) could be identified. In another study of adolescents’ reactions to obesity, Worsley (1981) studied teens’ perceptions of fat and slim people by asking l6-year-old subjects to rate six stimulus drawings. Results indicated that the fat outlines were negatively evaluated and the thin ones were positively evaluated. Evidently very little stimulus realism was needed to evoke a negative reaction on the part of respondents. Vener et al. (1982) conducted a study of 600 undergraduates’ responses to various stigmatizing conditions. Subjects were asked to indicate how likely they would be to prefer members of various stigmatized groups as marriage partners. Results indicated, 37 on average, that respondents would be more willing to consider an embezzler, an ex—mental patient, or a cocaine user than an obese individual as a spouse. Brink (1988) conducted an analysis of stereotypes of the obese. He asked undergraduate students to evaluate fictitious employees either regarding the individual’s suitability for a given job (experiment one) or for promotion to a higher level job (experiment two). The article does not state that raters were provided with a photograph, so one must assume that subjects evaluated written data only. Normal-weight subjects (holding all other qualifications for the candidate constant) were rated more highly than obese individuals. However, obese individuals were not rated lower, on average, regarding personality traits such as ”hard working, " "intelligent, " "conscientious, " and so on. Brink interpreted the findings as indicating that there was discrimination against the obese, but that such discrimination "probably reflects the discriminator’s cultural and aesthetic value system more than stereotypes about the personalities of obese persons, and the general advantage enjoyed by the physically attractive. " Negative attitudes toward the obese were found in a study by Harris and Smith (1983). Four hundred and forty seven adults and students (of various ethnic backgrormds) were asked to rate twelve line drawings of individuals who varied in age, sex and weight. The normal weight stimuli, in comparison with either fat or thin ones, were seen as happier, having more friends, being smarter, being better looking, less lonely, and mean (this last item is one of the few negative attributions made about a 38 normal-weight individual). Thin stimulus figures were seen as having more friends, better looking, smarter and meaner than the overweight ones. The negative stereotype of the obese thus holds across age ranges and populations representative of different ethnic backgrounds. The negative stereotype of the obese may in fact hold across Westernized cultures. In a cross-cultural comparison of attitudes regarding the obese, Tiggemann and Rothblum (1988) surveyed U.S. and Australian undergraduates’ attitudes toward weight, dieting, and body consciousness and found that, in a sample of students within which about 20% were in fact overweight, approximately 50% of students perceived themselves as overweight to some degree. Weight was a much greater concern for women than for men, and both males and females from both cultures stereotyped obese individuals more negatively than they did nonobese targets. Studies of general social attitudes do not necessarily translate into action or behavior on the part of employers. Such issues must be addressed directly. Unfortunately, relatively limited research has been conducted on perceptions of the obese within the context of human resource management activities. The work that has been done generally indicates extension of the negative stereotype of the obese into employment-related decision-making. 39 In an analysis of student subjects’ responses to an organizational decision, Homant and Kennedy (1982) asked student subjects for solutions to an employment problem involving either an ex-criminal-offender, an ex-mental patient, an obese individual, or a neutral, nonstigmatized individual. Their primary goal was to identify reactions to the ex-offender. Subjects were asked to react to a written appeal from the "employee" and were provided a written description (no photographs) of the individual. Results indicated that, in general, ex-offenders fared no worse than anyone else. Students who were criminal justice majors were most negatively disposed toward the ex-offender; business majors (individuals likely to be making hiring decisions at some point in their future careers) and science majors were most negatively disposed toward the obese. In a study of employment-related attitudes among students, Rothblum, Miller, and Garbutt (1988) asked student subjects to react to written descriptions of job applicants. They found that subjects reacted more negatively to the obese than the nonobese when basing decisions upon merely a written description. When pictures were provided, there was little negative stereotyping of obese applicants found. However, the study indicates neither whether subjects were informed of the type of job for which they were evaluating applicants, nor the type of position described within the written stimulus. Thus it cannot be determined whether subjects could have decided that the ratees’ appearance was relevant to the position being filled. If relevance was not perceived, the applicants’ appearance may not have "mattered" to the individuals doing the rating. The stimulus photos are not available within the article, so it is not possible to identify the impact upon attractiveness of the level of obesity. 40 Other studies of the attitudes toward the obese in employment decision-making have identified negative attitudes toward the obese. In a Businessfleek article summarizing data from a study of 850 male MBAs from the University of Pittsburgh, Baum (1987) reported that individuals who were 20% overweight earned roughly $4,000 per year less than their average-weight peers. The study also surveyed 350 women MBAs but found so few of them to be overweight that the conclusion was reached that ”heavy women tend not to be in management. " Given the conservative estimate that 20% of the adult female population in the U.S. can be classified as obese, it is surprising that there would be such a small percentage of overweight women in this sample. The causes for this finding are uncertain-overweight women may self-select out of competition for managerial jobs, and/ or discrimination against overweight women may be occurring. These two phenomena may be interacting to produce a situation in which overweight women avoid managerial positions because of the discrimination they assume will occur, or overweight women are hired as managers and immediately use income gained from the position to engage in a weight-loss regimen. In view of the widespread negative stereotyping of the obese, including work-related stereotyping, it seems unlikely that overweight women are gaining entry into management and immediately "slimming down." In the article cited above, Baum (1987) also noted that obesity and overweight are career detriments because to be obese is to be seen as 'slothful," and as being ”out of control of one’s health.” 41 In a study of perceptions of the obese in employment settings, Klassen (1987) assessed respondents’ stereotypes about obese (and other) individuals. He found a strong and basically negative stereotype generally held regarding the obese: that they are unkempt, lazy, lacking self-discipline, and insecure (p. 64). Respondents indicated limited willingness to work with obese males but very little (if any) willingness to have an obese female as a coworker. In further, related work, Klassen found that respondents were also willing to take actions consistent with the stereotype. In 1989, Belizzi, Klassen and Belonax found that respondents were more likely to (a) not assign an obese sales trainee a sales placement or (b) recommend an undesirable rather than desirable sales territory. Also, in 1989, Clayson and Klassen discussed the negative stereotypes held regarding the obese and hypothesized that the implications of this stereotyping process might be especially severe since obesity is commonly perceived to be a flaw which is within the individual’s control. In 1990 Jasper and Klassen reported that subjects in an experiment expressed less desire to work with an obese salesperson, and greater belief that an obese individual would make a less effective salesperson. Ideas similar to those described above were acknowledged by Everett (1990) in his discussion of the career prospects for obese individuals desiring careers in sales. He contended there was an extremely low probability that a firm would use an obese individual as a sales representative, despite the diminishing pool of sales talent available within the workforce. 42 In a later analysis of individuals’ employment experiences, Rothblum, Brand, Miller and Oetjen (1990) conducted a survey of members of the organization NAAFA (National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance). NAAF A is a social-and-advocacy-oriented group which lobbies for "size acceptance. " Most of its members are obese. In a 1990 analysis, Rothblum et al. found that very obese individuals, consistent with the prevailing social prejudices, did report more types of employment discrimination, more frequent attempts to conceal weight, and lower levels of self-confidence than nonobese subjects. These results were especially pronounced for female respondents. MC! ES"'E13! Negative attitudes such as those described above have obvious consequences if they are translated into action against the obese. Obese individuals display significant differences from their average-weight peers. Findings regarding these differences include the following: The obese are more likely to experience Wm. Goldblatt, Moore and Stunkard (1965) found a significant correlation between obesity and socioeconomic status, especially for women. The incidence of obesity among women from the lowest level of socioeconomic status included in the study was six times greater than that among the highest level (30% obese vs. only 5 % obese). Parental socioeconomic status was a powerful predictor of the propensity to be obese for women, as was recency of immigration (the longer one’s ancestors had been in the United States, 43 the less likely one was to be obese). Similar results were obtained for males, but the effects were much weaker. Similar findings persist down to the present day. Sobal and Stunkard (1989) indicated that the inverse relationship between socioeconomic status and incidence of obesity still persists within Westernized societies. (They noted that the relationship is positive rather than negative in developing countries.) Canning and Mayer, in a 1966 study of the influence of obesity on students: W (institutions where a personal interview was required for admission) found that, for women, there were twice as many obese students in high school as in college. Two—thirds more nonobese females from the population studied went on to college than did obese females. Slightly more nonobese males than obese males went on to college, but the difference was statistically insignificant. Canning and Mayer, however, did not explore the possibility that previously obese individuals might have been motivated to lose weight upon entry into college. Canning and Mayer also noted the inverse relationship between socioeconomic status and obesity and hypothesized that it might have been due, at least in part, to the denial to the obese of opportunities for self-advancement via avenues such as continuing education. Cahnman (1968) noted that the obese are considered mm mm. He also addressed the inverse relationship between socioeconomic status and obesity and cited data that indicated that the WW fiequently, and were less likely than the nonobese to take jobs which required post-high- school training. 44 In a later study related to education, Crandall (1991) found that heaxyfljghtmidents r ' l ’ ' ll ' (out of savings, earnings or financial aid) than were normal-weight students, who received higher levels of family support. These results were found at two different universities and were more reliable for women than for men, and held true even when family income (i.e. , socioeconomic status) was factored out of the equation. Crandall suggested that either these obese students’ families had limits on their ability to pay that were not captured in the analysis, or that they were aware of the general negative social stereotype of the obese and therefore felt the students less deserving of support. In a field test of landlords’ attitudes toward the obese, Kam's (1977) found that I}--. '. X 3) ' UL. ‘ ' -lL . .' _-l r _..,_.!,_'JL' . l .0 'J .h'i' Ml. . .7 I'll“-- ..AA. meighLindividual. These findings, although based on a relatively small sample (11 landlords contacted by both a normal-weight and an obese confederate of the experimenter), are noteworthy in that they are findings using live stimuli and face-to—face contacts (rather than simply evaluations of photographs). Obesity is a matter for social concern because of its presumed health consequences. Excess body fat has been linked in some studies to degenerative joint disease, respiratory compromise, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, fatty liver, and gynecological irregularities in females (Fitzgerald, 1981). 45 The true stigma associated with obesity is not related to medical consequences or outcomes, however. Instead, it is due largely to the fact that obesity in American society is attributed to a moral or characterological failure. That is, obesity is seen as a ”failure of the will” or of one’s character, since obesity is generally presumed to be caused by overeating, which is within an individual’s control (Fitzgerald, 1981). Fitzgerald contended that to be obese in U.S. society is to demonstrate a "moral failure". She further commented that the negative stigma applied to obesity is one of the ”few remaining sanctioned social prejudices against any group based solely on appearance” (p. 223). DeJong and Kleck (1986) contended that Western, industrialized cultures (such as the United States) are least accepting of overweight peers, and from childhood on assign negative adjectives to obese stimuli. They also commented that obesity is generally viewed as being a personal choice, and therefore indicative of "characterological stigma" , a failure of character or will. If the charge that the obese cannot exercise self-control is true, or if it is accurate that they are somehow morally flawed, then presumably employers would do well to avoid them. Research generally indicates, however, that the obese are no]; unable to control their eating behavior and do not overeat relative to their normal-weight peers (W ooley et al, 1979); rather, it suggests that the obese have different metabolic rates than ”average-weight” individuals and may be more ”efficient” users of caloric intake. In fact, recent reviews of the effectiveness of dieting as a treatment for obesity conclude that there is ”virtually no evidence that clinically significant weight loss can be maintained over the long term by the vast majority of people” (Garner and Wooley, 1991). 46 This topic is complicated by the fact that excess weight generally has more negative consequences for women than for men. That is, women report more employment victimization (Rothblum et al. , 1990); women report more concern about weight as a dimension of attractiveness (Tiggeman and Rothblum, 1988); and overweight women were virtually invisible in a sample of including 350 female MBAs (Baum, 1987). If anecdotal information is added to the empirical results above, the impact is striking. Women report experiencing a "normative discontent" with their weight (Rodin et al. , 1984) in that ”being a woman means feeling too fat" (p. 267). Sixty-two percent of women--including those who freely admit they are not overweight--say they would like to lose weight (Gallup and Newport, 1990). Beller (1977) documented trends in obesity and attitudes toward obesity throughout history. Her work is largely medical and psychological in focus, looking at the evolutionary and health-related consequences of different body types. She cited data which indicated that women, from birth onward, tend to have more body fat than men, which may be due at least in part to women’s child-bearing function. Women are thus more likely to experience ”weight problems" than men, due at least in part to biological or evolutionary forces. Seid (1989), in her analysis of women’s attitudes toward and difficulties with weight, noted that in U.S. society, "we believe people have absolute control over their body size...Fatness strikes us as an avoidable ’crime’...” (p. 22). 47 Seid’s contention was that fat people see and feel the prejudice which society holds against obesity. The obese are passed over in competitive situations including schools, jobs, and sports teams; additionally, there is little legal protection for them (see also the following chapter). Fat people are often reluctant to defend themselves since they themselves also believe that fatness is indefensible (p. 23). Their very body configuration accuses them with every window and mirror passed. They are exhorted to diet, exercise, even to consider surgical techniques such as liposuction or stomach stapling in attempts to generate a more ideal physique. Seid also noted research showing that of individuals who lose weight by dieting, 95 % to 98% of them regain the amount lost, and more, within a time period of two to seven years. Lissner et al. reported in a recent study published in the WM Medicine (1991) indicated that risk of heart disease increased from 25% to 100% in ”yo-yo” dieters (those who go up and down, again and again, in terms of weight regained and lost). These results would indicate that dieting may not have the beneficial long-term impact that has generally been attributed to it. In fact, dieting may prove to be costly in terms of both one’s health and one’s pocketbook (i.e., the "membership fees" assessed by various weight-loss programs). The difficulties of dieting are compounded by the fact that the "target" toward which the obese are supposed to aim themselves has shifted over time. In the mid-1960s, the average model weighed 8 % less than the average American woman; in the late 1980s, she weighed 23 % less. Garner and Garfinkel (1980) found that over the twenty-year 48 period 1959-1979, there had been a significant trend toward increasingly thinner preferred body shapes (as evidenced by the measurements of Playboy centerfolds and winning Miss America contestants). The problem is not just that women are apparently "designed” to put on extra weight as they enter their childbearing years. Since that fact is presumably true of all women, absent some other factors, it should be reflected in social preferences regarding body shape and size. There are ”other factors, " however, in that the standards that women hold for themselves are often drawn from entertainment and the media; and in these arenas, the standard for women’s body shape has been growing increasingly thin over the past twenty years (Garner et al. , 1980). Women may thus be evaluating themselves against an increasingly unrealistic standard, which may have negative consequences for their self-esteem and self-efficacy. 35E'l'l'lil'iinl31'n Overall, most research supports the premise that obesity is an aspect of physical appearance which is deemed negative by society. Studies described above indicate that individuals who are overweight can expect less social reinforcement, less responsiveness from peers and evaluators, lower rates of participation in education and training (Canning and Mayer, 1966), less support from family (Crandall, 1991), and lower levels of income attainment (Baum, 1987). These findings appear to be particularly strong for females. In employment settings, the obese are less preferred as coworkers (Klassen, 1987), may be negatively judged by employers and managers (Baum, 1987 ; Klassen and 49 Belonax, 1989; Clayson and Klassen, 1989), and may be seen as less worthy of promotion to higher levels (Baum, 1987). The fact that employers tend to respond more negatively to obese than non-obese employees confirms prejudice. Clayson and Klassen (1989) indicate that an obese individual may be judged especially harshly because it is generally believed that weight is within an individual’s control. Failure to act to control one’s weight is viewed as lack of self-control and employers feel free to act in ways which penalize employees for that lack of self-control. But, as was indicated above (e.g. , Beller, 1977), there exists the possibility that an individual’s weight may be determined by genetics and heredity, rather than simply by one’s calorie consumption. If that is the case, then employer actions which penalize employees on the basis of weight may well be actions which are discriminatory in a legal sense, "punishing" employees for physical characteristics over which they have little or no control. The following chapter reviews findings related to obesity as a legally-protected personal characteristic. CHAPTER FOUR OBESITY DISCRIMINATION AND THE LAW Brink (1988) claims that there is no negative personality stereotype regarding the obese, but no other author makes such a claim. Some,in fact, have so readily recognized the existence of social prejudice that they have suggested that discrimination against the obese should be made illegal (at present, only the state of Michigan and the city of Santa Cruz, California outlaw discrimination based on weight) or should be regarded as a handicapping condition and thus protected under state- or federal-level laws prohibiting discrimination based on handicap. In order to be considered a handicap, one’s condition must be considered "immutable” (i.e. , unchangeable) and must substantially affect one or more major life activities. Since the pursuit of employment is a major life activity, discrimination against an individual on the basis of a handicap (or a perceived handicap) is outlawed under the terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1992). If an obese individual is denied employment due to his or her weight, the claim may be made that the employer perceives the applicant as handicapped and is illegally denying access to employment because of the perceived handicap. It would then remain for the courts to decide whether the obesity would in fact present a barrier to effective job performance. 50 51 Since the Americans with Disabilities Act has been enacted only recently, the condition of obesity has not been adjudicated under the ADA. Whether or not obesity would be considered a handicapping condition which deserves the protection of the ADA has not been determined at this time. At the present time, there is little other protection for individuals who are discriminated against in employment due to their weight. In fact, discrimination on the basis of appearance factors has generally not been found illegal by the courts as long as the employer applies appearance standards across groups (e. g. , to men as well as to women) and as long as the characteristic(s) discriminated upon are deemed to be those which are within the direct control of the employee. W In one of the first tests of appearance standards, Alan Willingham charged a potential employer with sex discrimination, alleging that the firm he applied to (Macon Telegraph Publishing Co.) refused to hire him due to his hair length. The suit was filed in 1970 and final decision was rendered in 1975 (Willingham vs. Macon Telegraph Pub. Co., U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1975, 507 Federal Supplement, p. 1084). Willingham contended that the dress and appearance code enforced by the management of the Macon Telegraph allowed women to wear their hair any length they chose, and in requiring only men to have short hair, discriminated against males on account of their gender. (W illingham’s hair at the time was shoulder length, which was deemed to be a violation of community standards regarding grooming.) Willingham contended that this 52 refusal to hire was a form of "sex plus" discrimination, wherein sex plus one ostensibly neutral factor (in this case, hair length) combined to classify and discriminate among employees. In a prior case (Phillips vs. Martin Marietta Corp., 1971, 400 U.S. 542, 91 S. Ct. 496, 27 L.Ed. 2d 613), the Supreme Court had found a "sex plus” policy to be discriminatory in that differential hiring standards were practiced for males versus females (the company in question had a policy of refusing to hire women but not men who had pre-school-age children). The court in Willingham then faced a similar question: did the Macon Telegraph’s policy of refusing to hire only long-haired males constitute illegal ”sex plus" discrimination? A quick judgment on the issue might lead one to conclude that yes, such discrimination had taken place. Willingham’s contention that were he a female with the same length hair, he would have been hired, seems sensible. The court, however, in its analysis of the merits of the case, found otherwise. The court interpreted Title VH as being devised to impact any policy which attempts to deny employment to someone because of their membership in a protected category. The court contended that this was not the case with Macon Telegraph’s rejection of Willingham. Rather, the firm rejected him because of his hair length, which the court deemed to be a mutable characteristic Which enjoyed no constitutional protection. The firm was merely exercising its managerial prerogative to select applicants who best embodied the values of that 53 organization. Willingham was free either to look elsewhere for employment or to choose to subordinate his desire for long hair to his desire for a job. Willingham’s hair length did not impede his opportunities for employment in the view of the court, which was what Title VI] was designed to protect. Females who wished to work for the firm also had to meet standards for grooming, so individuals of either gender had the same W to meet community standards of appearance, even though those standards were not the same for both sexes. In general, the courts have upheld grooming, weight and appearance requirements by employers as long as the employer sets standards for both men and women, and these standards do not create a heavier burden of compliance for one gender over another. These standards must not significantly deprive either gender of employment opportunities. These standards have been applied to other cases involving long hair or other standards of personal appearance or dress (Barker v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 549 F.2d 400 [6th Cir., 1977]; Earwood v. Continental Southeastern Lines, Inc., 539 F .2d 1349 [4th Cir., 1976]; Longo v. Carlisle DeCoppet and Co., 537 F.2d 685 [2d Cir., 1976]; Knott v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co., 527 F .2d 1249 [8th Cir., 1975]; Baker v. California Land Title Co., 507 F.2d 895 [9th Cir., 1974] cert. denied 422 U.S. 1046, 95 S.Ct. 2664, 45 L.Ed.2d. 699 [1975]; and Dodge v. Giant Food, Inc., 488 F.2d 1333 [DC Cir. 1973]); . The courts have frequently found appearance requirements to be in violation of Title VII, however, when special appearance rules were applied only to members of one sex. In a number of situations, court cases which have attempted to address the issue of employee weight have occurred most commonly as adjuncts to claims of gender- or race—based discrimination. Charges of discrimination on the basis of gender or race are commonly filed under the terms of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or a comparable state-level statute. Title VII prohibits employers and unions from discriminating against applicants or employees in any term or condition of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Claims of race- or ethnic-background discrimination have been made in cases where a potential employee (or a class of potential employees) claims that a height-weight requirement for entry into a job category is inappropriate. Most commonly, it would be stated that one had to demonstrate achievement of some minimum height and weight in order to be eligible for employment. Employers would defend the standards with the claim that any stated requirements were neutral in that they were equally applied to all applicants. However, in their practical application such standards commonly act to disqualify women (and often Asians and Hispanics) more frequently than they disqualify white males, since members of these protected groups are often smaller in stature. For example, in the case of Dothard v. Rawlinson , 433 U.S. 321, 97 S.Ct. 2720, 53 L.Ed.2d. 786 (1977), the Alabama Department of Corrections had established a minimum height requirement of 5 feet 2 inches and a minimum weight requirement of 55 120 pounds for the position of prison guard. This policy did impact more negatively on women, with combined effect being the exclusion (on average) of 41% of U.S. women but less than 1% of men. The case above illustrates a principle known as "adverse impact, " wherein a facially neutral employment policy acts to disqualify members of a protected class (in this case, females) at a greater rate than males are affected. The next step in a legal analysis would be to ask an employer to provide compelling justification that the requirements are necessary for effective performance on the job. If one must be a minimum height, for example, to conduct visual surveillance of prisoners while in an exercise yard, the policy could be upheld despite its apparent discriminatory impact. While being ”underweight" relative to an employer’s policies may be defensible under Title VII or state equal employment opportunity law, being overweight is less likely to be protected. The circumstances in which employer maximum weight requirements have been challenged have generally been within the airline industry. In the case of Jarrell et al. vs. Eastern Airlines. 430 F.Supp. 864 (ED. Va. 1977), a group of flight attendants contended that the airlines’ imposition of a "weight control" program was a violation of Title VII. Eastern required both male and female flight attendants to conform to a weight control program which included different standards for males and females. Maximum 56 and minimum weights were indicated for given heights, with the minimum weights for men being in each case greater than the maximum weight for a woman of the same height. Individuals were checked twice yearly and anyone who was over his or her designated weight had to weigh in weekly and demonstrate progressive weight loss (at least one-half pound per week). Female flight attendants contended that the standards applied to women were much more stringent than those applied to male flight attendants. The court was not receptive to this argument, stating that "weight, unlike height, is a characteristic subject to the reasonable control of most individuals. . .there is nothing inherent in womanhood which makes Eastern’s weight standards more difficult for women to satisfy than men. " The court further noted that Title VII protection was designed protect individuals against "discrimination based either on immutable sex characteristics or constitutionally protected activities such as marriage or child rearing violate [Title VII] because they present obstacles to employment of one sex that cannot be overcome. " In a similar case, Susan Leonard (Leonard vs. National Airlines, 434 F.Supp. 269 [SD Fla. 1977]) claimed that her former employer, National Airlines, had discriminated against her on account of her sex by refusing to return her to employment upon completion of a maternity leave because she was "overweight” according to the maximum height/weight charts used by the airline. The court’s review of National’s policy indicated that the airline was relatively flexible in its administration of the height/ weight policy, allowing individuals to request upward adjustment of their stated maximum Weights and allowing for medical explanations for sudden and dramatic changes in 57 weight. Due to the flexibility demonstrated by the employer in the administration of the program, and because height and weight standards were applied to male as well as female flight attendants, the court did not support a finding of sex discrimination in this case. In another example, Carole Gerdom (accompanied by her union, the Union Of Flight Attendants, Local No. 1 in Gerdom v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 692 F .2d 602 [9th Cir. 1982]) claimed that her employer, Continental Airlines, had discriminated against her on the basis of gender by instituting a policy which required individuals (who were always females) who held the position of "flight hostess" to comply with strict height-weight standards. The airline contended that these requirements were merely grooming standards which fell outside the purview of Title VII because they applied only to women. The court was not persuaded by this argument, noting that the grooming standards were deemed permissible under Title VII are those which are "even-handedly applied to employees of both sexes" (p. 606). Continental’s policy could not meet this test since no comparable job category which included males was subject to similar grooming standards. Continental’s claim that the requirement was due to their custom preferences for slim female cabin attendants, rather than due to any corporate prejudices, was rejected firmly by the court. In the case of Laffey vs. Northwest Airlines (567 F .2d. 429, 456, [D.C.Cir. 1976]), Laffey challenged several employment policies, one of which was the application of 58 stringent height and weight standards solely to female employees. No similar policy was applied to the job category of "purser" which was filled primarily by males. The court ordered reinstatement and/ or back pay for individuals who had been terminated or suspended for failure to meet the discriminatory height/weight standards. Presumably, had the airline enforced stringent standards for both job categories, the action would have been defensible as ”enforcement of a grooming code. " WE: The issue of the "immutability" of a given personal characteristic such as weight or hair length (as raised in Jarrell vs. Eastern Airlines or Willingham v. Macon Telegraph) is a critical one. Weight control programs instituted by airlines were generally upheld by the courts as long as they were applied to both male and female employees. Weight was viewed as a characteristic which was under the employee’s control (one makes a choice as to what one weighs, in this view) and therefore a justifiable basis to use to discriminate one employee from another in terms of hiring or performance evaluation. Many of the "airline” cases described above might be viewed as anachronisms, i.e., evidence of outdated stereotypes regarding women. There are more recent examples, however. In the mid-1980s Salve Regina College (Rhode Island) expelled nursing student Sharon Russell because of her weight. They argued that her weight (between 280 and 300 pounds) would impede successful performance of her duties and would make her a 59 poor role model for patients. The college nursing department asked her to sign a contract agreeing to lose a preset amount of weight each week in order to maintain her enrollment in the program. She agreed to this but failed to achieve the predetermined weight loss. She was then dismissed from the nursing program and on that basis claimed that she was discriminated against on the basis of her weight. (She moved on to another school while pursuing her complaint against Salve Regina and completed her nursing program there.) Her discrimination complaint was dismissed on procedural grounds but she successfully claimed breach of contract (the college failed to meet its contractual obligation to educate her) and won a judgment of $44,000 (recompense for excess educational costs and lost wages). While the courts have generally acted on the assumption that weight is a self-controllable personal characteristic, this view is not universally held. Garner and Wooley (1991), for example, contend that weight control and dieting programs may be largely futile attempts to battle against one’s genetic inheritance. Their summary of the research findings on ”treatments" for obesity indicates "virtually no evidence that clinically significant weight loss can be maintained over the long term by the vast majority of people. " If one accepts these findings as accurate, then one is forced also to accept as reality that obese individuals suffer discrimination based on a characteristic which is only partially within their control (especially over the long term). This is discrimination 60 regarding an ”immutable" characteristic, but one which is not always viewed as such nor currently protected by federal legislation. Only in the state of Michigan and the city of Santa Cruz, California, are discrimination because of applicant or employee weight illegal. The need for protection of obese individuals’ equal opportunities for access to employment has been recognized by several authors, however, and a number of potential solutions have been proposed. Mason (1982) argued that the evidence that the overweight are disadvantaged in terms of income, access to education, access to employment, etc. , would justify legislation prohibiting such discrimination. Mason contended that there is a stereotype regarding the obese which has the following components: the obese are viewed as less competent, less industrious, less productive, more disorganized, indecisive, inactive, and less successful. Mason argued that the size of the potential ”protected class" (group which would benefit from such legislation) could be as large as 25 % of the U.S. population. Discrimination against such a large segment of society results in a loss to both the individual and the greater community as a result of underutilization of human potential. Mason argued, in addition, that the characteristic of weight is one which is relatively immutable and beyond the control of the individual. Other authors (Baker, 1982; Seguine, 1986) have argued that obesity might be considered a handicap under the terms of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Since one may be considered "handicapped” due either to an objective physical condition or the 61 employer’s perception that one is handicapped, it might be possible for individuals to claim a handicap if rejected for employment because of their obesity. It remains to be seen whether this interpretation will be proffered under the terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which went into effect in 1992. However, as has been indicated, to be considered a handicap, a physical condition must be immutable (Seguine, 1986). Further research evidence regarding the ”mutability" (or lack thereof) of individual weight will need to accumulate in order to convince the courts and the wider society that obesity can be considered a handicapping condition. And further evidence regarding employers’ attitudes toward the obese would have to accumulate in order to convince legislators that the condition deserves legislative protection. Much research remains to be done, however, before the extent and impact of prejudice against the obese can be stated with confidence. Is there, for example, a uniform level of prejudice against the obese, or does reaction differ according to the level of obesity encountered? Is obesity always negatively perceived, or can prejudices be neutralized by other factors such as education, experience, or enthusiasm? The following chapter outlines some basic hypotheses in an initial exploration of these questions. CHAPTER FIVE RESEARCH ISSUES AND HYPOTHESES W911 There are a number of notable gaps in the literature summarized in previous chapters. One concern is that nearly all of the studies have relied upon written descriptions or photographs. It would be desirable to conduct research using somewhat more ”lifelike” stimuli, such as applicants on videotape. Decision making in the real world is conducted under the influence of a variety of cues; asking subjects to make choices under more “lifelike” conditions, with a more complex set of cues, might afford a test of accepted constructs within more realistic conditions. Such testing might lead to more generalizable results or might provide interesting clues as to the strength of prejudices against the physically unattractive in general and the obese in particular. A second concern within the physical attractiveness literature is the failure of the researchers to describe either "attractive” or ”unattractive" stimuli. With some limited exceptions (e.g. , Franzoi and Herzog, 1987) the dimensions of physical attractiveness are not clearly specified. Examining of obesity as one dimension of physical attractiveness may help to clarify raters’ reactions to that specific dimension of physical attractiveness. Third, while obesity is generally accepted to be one aspect of physical unattractiveness, relatively limited research has been conducted to test specifically the influence of applicant obesity upon the employment selection process. While it is generally clear that obesity is considered unattractive (e. g. , Harris and Smith, 1983; 62 63 Brink, 1988), it is not clear whether or not applicant obesity elicits negative rater evaluations in the same way or to the same extent as does facial unattractiveness. iLHantheses If one assumes that results regarding obesity should follow the pattern set by results within the body of literature on physical attractiveness, several hypotheses can be derived: First, following the theoretical models offered by Raza and Carpenter (1987) and Morrow (1990) (see Figures 1 and 2, on pages 27 and 29 respectively), if obese individuals are viewed as unattractive, this should lead them to be less preferred and seen as lower in status characteristics than non-obese individuals. Given that the usual pattern of preference for individuals possessing higher status characteristics is that they are considered more desirable, it can be hypothesized, then, that the obese will be less preferred as employees. Obese individuals, if deemed to be less attractive, should be less preferred in the employment context. And following Raza and Carpenter’s (1987) and Morrow’s (1990) theories, if applicant attractiveness influences applicant "likability " , then obese individuals should be seen as less likeable and less preferred as co—workers, subordinates, or supervisors. In addition to obesity potentially reducing an employment applicant’s "likability, " it may be a condition which also reduces an applicant’s perceived job-readiness. If obesity is presumed to be a condition which is within the individual’s control, its presence may 64 lead evaluators to assess the applicant as being less "in control" and thus less likely to exercise consistent self-control (e. g., Seid,1989; Baum, 1987). Klassen (1987) notes that one stereotype which raters held regarding the obese was that the obese were seen as lazy and lacking self-discipline. Since self-control is often seen as a necessary prerequisite to the effective control of others, it is hypothesized that obese candidates may be seen as less able candidates for supervisory positions or those which lead to supervisory assignments. If this stereotype is widely held, presumably potential employers may view the obese not only as unattractive, but as lacking skills or abilities needed for job performance. The perception of reduced skills will presumably reduce the rater’s perception that an individual is "employable" and ”hirable" in Raza and Carpenter’s framework. In addition to reactions by raters, the perception of attractiveness might be expected to influence salary offered. As indicated earlier (Jackson, 1983), in some cases raters may offer attractive individuals greater inducements to accept a position and affiliate with an organization, presumably because the attractive individual has more ”options" available to him or her. As Morrow’s model would predict, individuals who are deemed to be lesser in terms of status characteristics would be worthy of fewer inducements. The above premises can be arrived at directly from the physical attractiveness literature. However, as the work by Heilman and her colleagues (1979, 1985, 1989) indicates, the physical attractiveness stereotype operates differently for men than for 65 women, with its effects being unequivocal for males (physical attractiveness is an asset) and less definitive for females (attractiveness is an asset when the job applied for is gender—congruent). To arrive at hypotheses regarding how applicant obesity should influence employment selection decisions, then, one should take into account the literature on obesity. Results within the obesity literature (e.g,. Seid, 1989) indicate that concern regarding weight, and social implications of weight, are much greater for females than males in U.S. society. Franzoi and Herzog’s (1987) results indicated that the primary determinant of female physical attractiveness, at least within a youthful (traditional college-age) sample, is a woman’s weight. Assuming that this assessment might persist beyond college age would lead to the conclusion that because weight is a primary determinant of female attractiveness, being overweight would lead to an individual’s being perceived as unattractive. The presumed consequence of this perception would be for the individual who is deemed unattractive to receive fewer and less desirable social outcomes, such as offers of employment. If Franzoi and Herzog’s results hold true regarding evaluations of female attractiveness, the following can thus be hypothesized from the literature reviewed: H1. Obese individuals will be less likely to be selected for employment than normal-weight individuals. H2. Obese individuals will be less likely to be preferred as potential coworkers, supervisors or subordinates. 66 H3. lf subjects are asked to rate prospects for individuals’ likelihood of success in an employment setting, obese individuals will be rated as having lower likelihood of successful performance. H4. If subjects have the opportunity to assign candidates to positions, obese individuals are less likely to be assigned to positions which lead to supervisory responsibilities. H5. If subjects are asked to recommend a starting salary for a prospective employee, obese individuals will receive lower initial salary recommendations. H6. Obesity of the candidate should have less impact upon the evaluation of male candidates than upon the evaluation of female candidates. In other words, discriminatory findings (if any) should be more pronounced for obese female applicants than for obese males. These, then, are the hypotheses which form the basis for this thesis. In summary, it is hypothesized that applicant obesity, as operationalized by filming with an altered video camera, will lead to the obese applicant’s being less likely to be selected for employment, being less preferred as a coworker or subordinate, being less likely to be hired into a supervisory position, being evaluated as having lower likelihood of job success, and being offered a lower salary upon hiring. It is additionally hypothesized that these results will be more pronounced for the female than the male job candidate. CHAPTER SIX METHODOLOGY 1 f R e h The goals of this research are to assess the influence of applicant gender and applicant weight upon raters’ evaluations of a candidate for employment. In order to assess the influence of applicant weight and gender, it would be desirable to have the opportunity to hold all relevant factors constant across the manipulation. Past research has generally been unable to do this unless raters were asked to evaluate only paper credentials (i.e. , no photo or other visual stimulus provided). As was indicated earlier, however, this methodology may not allow the reader to generalize from the results obtained in the evaluation of "paper people. " Decision making in the real world is conducted under the influence of a variety of cues; asking subjects to make choices under more ”lifelike” conditions might lead to more realistic results which could be generalizable to larger segments of the population. It is also possible that the results obtained with more realistic stimuli might not demonstrate the same biases obtained using earlier methods. The present research utilized video "resumes” for the ostensible job candidates in order to provide a more realistic stimulus for analysis. Raters were asked to review a ”video resume" and rate the candidate’s suitability for employment. Raters were recruited and the experiment administered in groups in order to maximize efficiency and 67 68 minimize the time commitment demanded of raters. Each group of raters viewed the video resume of a single "applicant," who was described as a graduating MBA student with moderate prior work experience. The candidate’s background included diverse work experiences which afforded raters the opportunity to assign the candidate to a variety of jobs consistent with the applicant’s prior work experience. The candidate’s resume was included in the ratings packet which subjects received (see Figure 3 for a copy of the resume provided to raters). The description of prior experience and qualifications remained the same regardless of which video was seen by raters. The candidate’s background was designed to reflect experience which could be seen as positive or negative, depending on the interpretive frame of reference used by the rater. A gender-neutral name, "Leslie Anderson, " was used to identify the applicant. 525]. .151 Subjects were recruited from graduate (master’s level) classes at a small (6,000 students) midwestern university. Each group of raters consisted of the students within a single class or those students within a given class who agreed to participate in the experiment. Graduate student raters were chosen because it was felt they were likely to be older and more experienced and therefore more likely to be representative of the general working population. It was also felt that the results were thus more generalizable beyond the college setting. Individuals within this age range also were more likely to be employed in positions where they might influence hiring decisions. 69 Leslie D. Anderson Current Address: Permanent Address 1424 Edgewood Drive, #2B 5728 Briarcliffe Peoria, IL 61601 Waukegan, IL 60085 (309) 555-7654 (708) 555-1234 Education Master of Business Administration. Peoria State University. Degree expected in summer 1992. Major: General Business. Minor: Marketing. Overall GPA: 3.30. Bachelor of Business Administration. 1985 graduate of Central State University, Greenwood, Wisconsin. Major in Business Administration (Finance). Minor in Spanish. Overall GPA: 3.25. Employment Experience: 1990-Present Store Manager, Hartwig Florals, Peoria, IL. Designed store layout, ordered inventory, responsible for customer relations, planning and daily budgeting. Supervised and trained four (part-time) sales assistants. 1987-1989 Payroll Clerk, Evans' Greenhouse,Waukegan,IL. Computed payroll for a staff of 28 and conducted.office management duties as needed in the absence of the payroll supervisor. 1986-1987 Credit Analyst,Martin's Furniture,waukegan, II" Entered and verified customer data for purpose of analyzing customer credit- worthiness. Issued store credit cards and maintained customer records. 1985-1986 Sales Representative, Superior Restaurant Supplies, wankegan, IL. Assessed customer inventory levels and provided new supplies as needed. Maintained contact with a route of approximately 50 retailers. Special Skills: Fluent in Spanish. Have travelled extensively throughout central and South America. Familiar with several inventory control and spreadsheet programs. Interests: Travel, biking, reading. References: Will be furnished upon request. IHGRHUE3 CANDIDATE RESUME 70 It would have been ideal to be able to randomly assign subjects to conditions. However, due to space constraints and logistical problems (most graduate classes are held in late afternoons and evenings and students are not regularly available at other times due to work commitments), a convenience sample was used in the present study. To minimize any bias associated with this sampling technique, efforts were made to draw groups from similar populations (such as different sections of the same class or different classes within the same major). Students were drawn from graduate business, education, nursing and political science classes; with efforts to include approximately equal numbers from each subgroup within each cell of the design. Subjects consisted of 297 students drawn from 26 classes. Data from two subjects were not analyzed due to missing information, yielding a total of 295 participants. Participants consisted of 115 males (39%) and 180 females (61%) in the sample. The mean age of raters in the sample was 34.0 years and the average number of years of work experience was 12.0 years. Since raters were graduate students, virtually all had their bachelor’s degrees; the only exceptions were a few undergraduates who were sitting in on a higher-level class. 5311B“ 11' The videotape seen by raters was drawn from one of the four following possible experimental conditions: 71 l i l A Ii 11 Non-Obese Candidate A Candidate B Obese Candidate C Candidate D This is an analysis of variance design (ANOVA) with two independent variables: weight (obese vs. normal weight) and gender of the applicant (male vs. female). Gender was ”manipulated" by filming different versions of the video resume: one set with a male and one with a female. Weight was manipulated by the use of an altered video camera to film two versions for each applicant: one of which presented the individual as average-weight and one which altered the horizontal scan of the camera to create the impression of obesity. Two main effects (for gender and weight) were tested for, as well as an interaction term (gender x weight). There are two key variables of interest in this study. The first was applicant gender. As the results summarized above indicate, the impact of physical attractiveness on rater evaluations has been different for males vs. females (Cash et al. , 1977; Heilman et al. , 1979, 1985, 1989). Thus, to assess whether applicant gender had an influence on ratings, 72 raters were asked to rate either a male or a female candidate (with candidate qualifications held constant across the conditions). Gender was manipulated in this experiment by filming both a male and a female portraying the same "video resume". Actors were solicited locally by letters sent to local theatrical companies (see Figure 4 as an example) and through an ad run for two weeks in local newspapers soliciting actors (see Figure 5 for text of the ad). Height and weight data were gathered on each individual who applied (there were approximately twenty applicants) in response to both of the above solicitations. Two photographs (one full-body photo and one head-and—shoulders shot) were taken of each applicant and height and weight data were collected. Only individuals who were within plus or minus 5 % of the desirable height-weight limits received further consideration (see Figure 6 for the height-weight values used in the study). The pool of applicants who met the above criterion were then screened by a group of adult raters. Faculty and staff members at the same school (a group of ten raters, five males and five females, average age 38) were used to avoid depleting the pool of graduate student raters. These individuals reviewed the stimulus photographs and their ratings were used to calculate a mean rating of attractiveness for each applicant. The pool of potential candidates was then narrowed to those individuals who were rated as "average” in physical attractiveness. This level of attractiveness was chosen in order to avoid the potential confounding effect of facial attractiveness. 73 June 1, 1992 MS. Managing Director, Theater Guild Midland Center for the Arts 1801 W. St. Andrews Midland, MI 48640 Dear MS . 3 I am writing to ask your help in locating actors who would be willing to participate in.a research project later in the summer. I am seeking one male and one female, aged 27-35 (approximately), average weight and height, who would be willing to portray a job candidate and who as part of this portrayal would film a "video resume" which would later be shown to groups of raters. I anticipate that the total time devoted to filming would amount to no longer than one day and I am willing to pay approximately $10.00 per hour to each of the two candidates. If you would be willing to post this letter at your playhouse and/or to circulate it among your membership, I would be most grateful. Individuals who are interested in the job should send me a brief resume and a full-length snapshot (photos will be returned if a self-addressed envelope is provided). Please ask interested individuals to label their snapshots appropriately. Interested individuals are asked to submit their materials as soon as possible. I hope to conduct filming during late June or early July. Resumes and other materials may be sent to me at either of the enclosed addresses below, or individuals with questions may call at either of the enclosed numbers: Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Gail E. Sype Assistant Professor of Management FIGURE 4 LETTEREKNJCITHNSIHSDORS 74 HELP WANTED ADVERTISEMENT: ACTING/PUBLIC SPEAKING EXPERIENCE NEEDED to £11: a video to be used as part of a research project. $10.00 PER HOUR. Hale and felale actors needed. Call 517-790-5685 on Monday or Tuesday, between 11 ml.th[xL FIGURES TIDCFCHVHELP‘NAEHIH)AUTVERTHHHMENT' AVERAGED HEIGHT/WEIGHT VALUES HEIGHT: FEET INCHES MEN WOMEN 4 10 110-121 lbs; 4 11 111-123 lbs; 5 0 113-126 lbs; 5 1 115-129 19$; 5 2 132-142 lbs. 118-134llbsl 5 3 134-144 lbs. 121-138 lbsl 5 4 136-146 lbs.____124_-_112_lbs_._ 5 5 138-149 lbs. 127-146 lbs; 5 6 140-154 lbs. 139-159 lbs. 5 .42 143:159 lbs, 133-154 lbs. 5 8 146-163 lbs. 136-152 lbs. 5 9 148-167 lb 9- 4 5 10 151-172 W 5 ll 154-177 lbw 6 0 157-182 lbsl 148-178 lbs; 6 1, 160-187 lbs. 6 2 164-192 lbs. 6 3 167-197 lbs. 6 4 171-200 lbs. (BASED ON FIGURES DERIVED FROM METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, "1979 BUILD STUDY”, SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES AND ASSOCIATION OF LIFE INSURANCE MEDICAL DIRECTORS OF AMERICA) FIGURE 6 HEIGHT-WEIGHT VALUES 75 Raters also rated each applicant’s age, with these values being averaged to produce a mean assessment of age for each applicant. Selection of the man and woman used in the study was based on this pretest’s results, which indicated that they were perceived as equal in attractiveness and between ages 27-30. A copy of the ratings form used by raters to review each candidate is provided as Figure 7. Copies of the photographs of the individuals ultimately chosen to participate in the filming are included as Figure 8. The second independent variable was weight. Obesity can be defined in different ways, but in technical-medical contexts can be defined as the condition of being 20% or more greater in body weight than the weight prescribed by standard height-weight tables (Vener et al. , 1982). Candidate "obesity" within this context was operationalized through the use of video filming techniques to create the impression of obesity by altering the horizontal scanning of a video camera and thus widening the image of the individual being filmed. The highest level of realism in operationalizing this variable would be obtained by presenting different applicants, those who are obese and those who are not, and comparing the ratings obtained by these individuals on outcome measures such as ratings of attractiveness and job suitability. This, however, would require raters’ responses to different individuals and thus would not rule out potential confounding related to differences in hair or skin coloring, vocal intonation, vocal pitch, as well as intangibles such as "personality” and level of perceived introversion-extraversion. While these differences are of course present in the real world, it would be desirable from a research standpoint to control for them in order to more precisely measure the variable of interest, which is level of obesity. 76 Please respond by circling the number that best corresponds to your response: 1. In terms of physical attractiveness, this individual is: Very Quite Somewhat Somewhat Quite Very UNATTRACTIVE AVERAGE ATTRACTIVE 1----2--- 3----4---- 5----6 ----7 2. This individual appear to be approximately years old. FIGURE7 PRETESTPKHUM:RAJUWGS(EVACHTWIATTRA£HTVENESSIUWDAMGE 77 FIGURE 8 ACTORS’ PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHOTOGRAPHS 78 In order to be able to present a single individual in both an average-weight and an overweight condition, a technique was needed which would make an average-weight person appear heavier. Theatrical padding and makeup techniques could provide such alterations, but such padding and makeup techniques would have to be altered for every individual used as a stimulus. Since the alterations would be tailored to the specific individual, there would still be the problem of trying to ensure comparability and uniformity across stimuli. To avoid these practical difficulties, it was decided that it would be more desirable to devise a filming technique which could be applied equally to each stimulus individual, thus eliminating one potential source of error variance. One example of the use of video film techniques in body image measurement is the video technique pioneered by Freeman and his colleagues (1984). This technique was originally used to assess the accuracy of body image perceptions of anorexics and bulimics. As described by Freeman et a1. (1984), the television image consists "of a series of lines, produced by a rapid scanning device. The rate of scan determines the breadth of each line in the image" (p. 412). A black-and-white video camera was modified in order to generate the video image. The horizontal deflection unit of the video camera was altered so that a variable rather than a fixed voltage would flow through it. The visual image thus became broader or narrower as the speed of the scan was increased or decreased. In its original version, the camera permitted variations of up to 20% thinner and 40% fatter, "without distortion of the video image" (p. 413). Modification of the present camera permitted a slightly higher potential for expansion of the video image. The individual performing the video camera modifications used within 79 the present study was the same person who developed the camera alteration used in the Freeman et al. work. Accordingly, the video camera modification devised permitted a distortion in filming which made the stimulus look broader (heavier). It was found through consultation with various video camera technicians that most color video cameras available for individual or home use did not offer technology which was readily modifiable. The type of video camera which most readily allowed the alterations necessary to adjust the visual scan proved to be a security camera (an Exxis Camera model no. EV-l, 6 watts) which filmed in black and white. While a black-and-white image was not the ideal condition, it was felt that the presentation of a video image offered sufficient realism even if the stimulus was not in color. To offset the "surprise" that raters might experience when confronted with a black-and—white image, the approximately four-minutes-long video was preceded by about a minute and a half of instructions which were also presented in black and white to provide time to raters to adjust to the conditions. After experimentation with images produced by the camera, it was decided that an increase of approximately 50% in image size (as determined by the variable scan settings) generated a sufficient size increase without obvious visual distortion of the video image. Accordingly, the two individuals were filmed with the camera set at a level of "50% increase” according to the scan setting. A pretest of the video camera results then was conducted to determine whether the camera alterations alone (i.e. , the 50% increase in image size) generated sufficient change in raters’ perceptions of the appearance of the ”expanded” candidate to trigger the perception of candidate ”fatness. " 80 Respondents in this pretest were asked to evaluate the male and female actor in terms of weight and attractiveness. Each group of raters saw and rated two images: either the unaltered male and altered female in combination, or the altered male and unaltered female image. Groups of raters were drawn from undergraduate courses at the same university where the experiment was conducted. (Undergraduate raters were used to avoid depletion of the graduate student rating pool.) There were 16 raters in one group (8 men and 8 women), and there were 24 raters in the other group (19 women and 5 men). Perceptions of stimulus weight were measured on a 7-point scale, with the value one indicated as “very thin,” four as "average," five as ”somewhat obese” and seven as ”very obese. " (See Figure 9 for a copy of instructions to individuals administering the experiment and Figure 10 for a copy of the first pretest form). Although the raters in this pretest saw the expanded male image as significantly heavier than the average—weight male (mean of 3.71 vs. mean of 3.13, t = 2.75, 35 df, which is significant at p < .005, one-tailed), the observed mean was not high enough to trigger the perception of candidate ”fatness" or obesity. That is, there was an increase in the mean rating but it was not sufficient to classify the expanded image into a new ”category. " The results for the female in this pretest achieved means of 4.3 in average-weight condition vs. 4.8 in the expanded condition (t = 1.70, 35 df, which is signficant at p < .05, one-tailed). 81 Dear Enclosed you will find the videotape and the ratings forms. I have arranged for a work-study student to deliver the VCR/monitor to your classroom. I will also make sure that the equipment gets returned to the A/ V department. The videotape should begin to play shortly after you insert it into the VCR. There are two candidates for the students to rate. After the first candidate has been seen, please pause the machine for a minute or so to allow raters to complete their evaluations. You may then resume play of the video; there are a few feet of blank tape separating the two presentations. You may give the students the following instructions (they will also have them attached to their ratings forms): ”YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN A STUDY OF FIRST IMPRESSIONS. PARTICIPATION IN THIS RESEARCH EXERCISE SHOULD TAKE THREE TO FIVE MINUTES OF YOUR TIME AND WHaL BE STRICTLY VOLUNTARY. YOUR COURSE GRADE WILL NOT BE AFFECTED IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO PARTICIPATE. YOU WILL BE ASKED TO REVIEW TWO POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR EMPLOYMENT AND BRIEFLY RATE EACH OF THEM. RATE EACH CANDIDATE AFTER VIEWING HIM OR HER ON THE VIDEOTAPE. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN FURTHER DETAILS REGARDING THIS STUDY, PLEASE PUT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE LABEL ATTACHED TO YOUR RATINGS FORM AND YOU WILL BE SENT MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IN THE FUTURE WHEN THIS RESEARCH IS COMPLETED. YOU MAY SEPARATE YOUR COVER SHEET FROM YOUR RATINGS FORM IN ORDER TO PROTECT YOUR ANONYMITY. YOUR RESPONSES AND YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WILL BE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. ANY RESULTS GENERATED IN THIS STUDY WILL USE ONLY SUMMARY, NOT INDIVIDUAL DATA." You may then stop the tape after the second candidate has been viewed. I will see you after your class to collect the ratings forms. Please call me at extension 5606 if you have any questions. Thanks SO MUCH for your help. I really appreciate it. FIGURE 9 INSTRUCTIONS TO ADMIN ISTRATORS OF OBESITY PRETESTS ONE AND TWO I. l§2 CANDIDATE: Please evaluate this candidate and respond by circling the number or indicating the value that best corresponds to your response: 1. This individual is: Very Quite Somewhat Somewhat Quite Very UNATTRACTIVE AVERAGE ATTRACTIVE 1---2---3--- -4----5---- 6----7 2. This individual is approximately years old. 3. This individual is: Very Quite Somewhat Somewhat Quite Very Thin Thin Thin AVERAGE Obese Obese Obese 1---2---3 ----- 4----5----6----7 4. I would estimate this individual's weight as pounds. 5. I am (CHECK ONE) HALE FEMALE. FIGURE 10 FIRST OBESITY PRETEST FORM CANDIDATE: Please evaluate this candidate and indicate your assessment of that individual by circling the number or writing in the value that best corresponds to your response: 1. This individual is: Very Somewhat AVERAGE Somewhat Very Unattractive Unattractive Attractive Attractive 1 ------- 2 ----- 3 ----- 4 ----- 5 2. This individual is approximately years old. 3. This individual is: Very Somewhat AVERAGE Somewhat Very Thin Thin Weight Overweight Overweight 1 ----- 2 ------ 3 ----- 4 ------ 5 PLEASE INDICATE 1993 GENDER: L Iu(mmrmm um Emma FIGURE 11 JSIE(3()PVI) ()IlEflSIIflf FHRIEINE!§I‘I?()I{N4 83 The differences in these obtained means indicates that while both the male and female were approximately equivalent in objective height-weight dimensions, she was perceived as significantly heavier than he was in both the altered and unaltered conditions. Comparing the means in their unaltered states, the male mean was 3.13 vs. a female mean of 4.33 (t= 6.10 at 35 df, which is significant at p < .005, one-tailed). Comparing the means of the altered images, the male mean was 3.71 vs. a female mean of 4.75 (t = -5.90 at 35 df, which is significant at p < .005, one-tailed). Given that the video did not generate the desired perception of ”fatness" of both actors by raters, the videos were re-filmed, using the same actors. The actors were at that point lightly padded using quilt batting (a cotton-like sheet of fluffy material about 1/2 an inch thick) over their torsos and their shoulders to create an image in which there was clearly some "stress" or puffrness under the material of their clothing. Shoulder pads were placed under the actors’ shirts, with a single layer of quilt batting (approximately 8" by 18") over each arm and a double layer of batting (size approximately 10" by 30") around the front of the torso. Actors were filmed against a neutral background, with a blank light-colored wall behind them. Each actor was positioned sitting on the edge of a table (the entire table was not visible in the video). This position was chosen because it enabled the video camera to capture the image of the individual from mid-thigh up, to ensure perception of an image that captured the main portion of the body. Each individual wore clothing which was considered to be standard "interview attire,” i.e., dark pants or skirt and‘ae white or pastel—colored shirt or blouse and little or no jewelry. Since filming was. 34 conducted in black and white, the shirts looked to be the same color on the finished video. Each individual was filmed without a suit coat or jacket to ensure that his or her body shape and proportions would not be obscured or camouflaged by clothing. A second pretest analyzing raters’ perceptions of the candidates utilized a slightly different format from the first (see Figure 11 on page 82 for a copy of the second pretest form). Raters were given a choice of five levels of applicant weight, with one being “very thin,” three being "average” and five being ”very overweight. " Again, two groups of raters were utilized, with each group seeing one male and one female image, one altered and one unaltered. One group had 18 raters (11 females and 6 males), and the second group had 20 raters (18 females and 2 males). Both groups were drawn from undergraduate classes and were different from the groups used in the first pretest of perceptions of stimulus weight. The manipulation check of this revised version of the video did indicate that, in each case, the candidate in his or her unaltered condition was perceived as roughly ”average” in weight and that the altered image was perceived as "somewhat overweight. " The obtained values for the male were means of 2.84 (unaltered image) versus a mean of 4.08 for the altered image (t = 7.05, 30 (if, significant at p < .01, one-tailed). The obtained values for the female were means of 3 .22 (unaltered image) versus 4.11 (altered image) (t = 6.54, 35 df, p < .01, one—tailed). It is of interest to note that the results of this pretest also indicated that the female in her unaltered condition was seen as significantly heavier than the male in his unaltered 85 condition (mean of 3.22 vs 2.84, t = 2.15, 30 df, significant at p < .025, one-tailed). However, neither result was significantly different from the target value of three, a mean rating of "average” in weight. These preliminary results were, however, interesting in that they confirmed the common observation in the literature that weight tends to be differentially evaluated for males versus females. As an additional indication of the effect of the video camera technique, each of the images was measured on a television screen measuring 20" by 15" (an approximate 25" diagonal). All raters saw the candidates in this format or on a slightly larger screen. Measurements indicated that the image of the male candidate in his unaltered (”average- weight") condition took up 133 square inches, or 44% of the television screen; the male candidate’s altered image was 214 square inches, or 71% of the screen (60% larger than the unaltered image). For the female candidate, her unaltered image occupied 113 square inches, or 38% of the screen; her altered image took up 192 square inches, or 64% of the screen (69% larger than her original image). These differences in amount of screen space consumed are due to slight differences in the individuals’ body sizes and differences in the body posture utilized by each actor. ”an . 13].. Groups of raters were asked to view a brief videotape (approximately 4 nrinutes’ duration) described to them as a ”video resume. " Each rater received a packet containing a set of instructions, a consent form, a ”Scenario" sheet, and a six-page questionnaire (see Figures 12, 13, 14, and 15). 86 In each case, the instructor of the class within which the experiment was conducted was responsible for experiment administration. The principal researcher did not administer the experiment in person because it was feared that her appearance (she herself is obese) would bias the results by possibly indicating to respondents the specific nature of the variables under investigation (respondents were informed that the study was concerned with the subject of "first impressions"). Each course instructor received a set of instructions as to the techniques they would use to administer the experiment (see Figure 16). Each instructor received a set of ratings packets to pass out to respondents and a copy of the videotape to be shown to students. In most cases the experiment was administered at the start or the end of class sessions. Room sizes varied from approximately 25’ by 25’ to 47’ by 30’. The content of the candidate’s video resume was the same across all subjects. The name of the candidate did not vary across presentations, nor did the script spoken nor the experience of the candidate. The resume of the applicant and the script used are attached (see Figure 3, page 69, and Figure 17). 87 INSTRUCTIONS You are being asked to participate in a study of first impressions. Participation in this experiment is strictly voluntary. Your course grade will not be affected if you decide not to participate. Assume that it is June 1992 and you are a supervisor who is about to view the video resume of an individual seeking employment within your firm. Assume that the applicant indicates that this resume was filmed in May of 1992 and that you would be making a decision regarding immediate placement of the individual described here (see "Scenario" sheet regarding conditions affecting your decision). A copy of the candidate’s resume is provided for your review. Please complete the consent form and return it separate from your ratings packet. Please wait to complete the ratings forms and turn them in following the viewing of the complete video resume. Use the #2 pencil (provided) to fill in the response spaces on the questionnaire. If you have already filled out this questionnaire in another setting, PLEASE DO NOT FILL OUT ANOTHER ONE. Instead, please return this entire questionnaire packet to your instructor. Please DO NOT WRITE on any of these materials other than on the questionnaire response form. THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your cooperation and assistance. IHGKHUElZ INSTRUTHTONSTNDFUKHHHSPARTRJTMHNNCEHVITHEEXPERHWENT 88 O S ORM POSSIBLE RISKS: As part of this research, we are asking you to provide certain data about yourself and your family in order to determine whether individuals of different genders or different income levels rate or judge others according to different criteria. Accordingly, you may be asked to complete questions which may seem somewhat personal or intrusive. You may be assured that this information will be held in the strictest confidence by the investigator and only summarized, aggregated data (gage; individual questionnaire results) will be publicly released or discussed. Please note: If you feel that you would be unwilling to answer these questions or disclose personal information, even under conditions of confidentiality, please feel free to discontinue your participation in the experiment. Your grade will not be affected by your decision to discontinue your participation. Please return this form and any other materials you may have received to the experiment administrator. If you are willing to continue, please sign the following affidavit of consent: AFFIDAVIT OF CONSENT: I hereby acknowledge that I have been informed about the risks associated with this research (see description of risks, above) and that I am participating willingly in the administration of this experiment. (OPTIONAL: I have provided my name and address on the label below indicating my desire to receive a description of the outcomes of this research at a later point in time.) I understand that if I do not wish to participate in this experiment, it will in no way affect my course grade. (Date) (Signature) Please put your name and address on the (Staple Blank Address label at the left. You Label Here) will be mailed additional data about the results of this experiment at a later date. FIGURE 13 ILKTERTSCIHHHHWTIKMUM 89 SCENARIO You are being asked to review the video resume of a prospective job applicant. Assume that it is May of 1992 as you review this individual’s qualifications. You may assume that you have three job openings (see below) into which you could place this candidate. However, if you wish, you can choose to reject this candidate outright and seek additional candidates. The three positions you have available are as follows: A. HUMAN RESOURCES BENEFITS ANALYST: An individual in this job collects and analyzes data to be used in analyzing the firm’s benefits and designing appropriate benefits policies. This individual also conducts periodic reviews of company performance relative to short- term goals. He or she reviews cost data and develops reports in accordance with a supervisor’s directives. This individual must be capable of working independently and have proven analytical skills. The individual holding this job works alone for the most part. There is a relatively short career ladder above this job; promotion potential is limited and there is little opportunity for contact with higher-level management. Entry-level salaries in comparable positions in other firms have ranged from $18,000 to $28,000 per year. SALES REPRESENTATIVE: An individual in this job will be rotated through a number of duties to be trained as a sales representative for the firm. Ultimate duties of the job will include extensive travel, high levels of customer contact, aggressive pursuit of new clients, and regular attendance as company representative at trade fairs and conferences and conventions. From this position one can move into sales management and from there into upper-level management within the marketing function. Entry-level salaries for comparable positions within other firms have ranged from $20,000 to $35,000 per year. MANAGEMENT TRAINEE: An individual in this job will be rotated through a number of departments (finance, marketing, production, human resource management, quality control, etc.) before being evaluated at the end of a year for final placement into a position in one of these departments. This position is generally viewed as a "fast-track" placement which utilizes only the most-qualified candidates. Movement from this position can be rapid, and individuals holding this job have frequent contact with Upper-level management and with clients, suppliers and the public. Entry-level salaries for comparable positions within other firms have ranged from $28,000 to $45,000 per year. FIGURE 14 EDGPETUDNIHVT‘SCIHVAUKK) ~‘ .r 4~~~.z- ‘ (251.933.; 3215,31 ,, Plesse reed these messia- csrefully and resume: on the bests of the intrusion you have for-d of this mutate. Plus choose the response that best corresprwu to you: assess-ant of this indivickrsl. ify‘w £1533:Sifib’fififisifiz ‘ “SUM!!! REGARDING “IDA“: "t ’3”.‘."-.’-’!? «amt/em 'w'dr”! .1. 5'- 535544241 ' ' v.47.“- :‘E.v"..‘:’:‘:‘:‘:‘ 5:521:93: ' USE N. ZPEKIL 6 FILL m WY S Stall! l: m 1010!! Val OVEmL lmfllu 0! 11113 MIDI“: Disagree"...............lsutrsl.................m III a, 1. 1 would went to be this person‘s coworker. 1 2 3 Z 4 3 ' 6 -'-1’-5=i" 2. 1 would want to work for this person. 2 3 ‘ ‘ 5 . 6 -”’ 3. 1 would went to be this indivlrkrsl's smervisor. 2 3 4 S 6 'I'KE.‘- 1 think this person would wake e good boss. 2 3 3 ‘ 5 - 6 -=’i~"~f- S. 1 think this person would be s highly productive onloyse. 2 3 4 3 6 '7. 6. 1 think this person would nske s very good spokesperson for -:"-=‘: on orgsnizstion. 2 3 4 5 5 -=r=‘» 7. 1 think this person is capsule of working indepemaently. '2 3 4 S 6 -3" 6. 1 think will derlor'istrste initiative. 2 3 4 5 6 -*-‘ 9. I think will be self-motivated. 2 3 4 S 6 -; 10. think will be e hard worker. 2 3 4 S 6 - 11 think has strong conmunicstron skills. 2 3 4 S 6 -' 12. think has strong leadership skills. 2 3 4 5 6 -' 13. think would perform well on the job. 2 3 4 S 6 -- 14. think will be on effective decision-inner. 2 3 4 S 6 -- 15. think hes strong MANAGERIAL skills. 2 3 4 S 6 -"-‘= 16. I think this person has strong lNTERPERSOtML skills. 2 3 4 S 6 17. Give three adjectives to describe this individual's personality: 18. Give three adjectives to describe this individual's experience or work history: 19. Briefly, what would you say are this person's strengths? 20. Briefly, what would you say are this person's weaknesses? FIGURE 15 QUESTIONNAIRE - Tsanuwtu Plesse reed the followim it- carefully and indicate you reeprwne by fillifll 4M W0 '0 "UR 0' 0|. W - you feel best describes this csndiate: 2‘s m‘oreeneeeeeeeeeeseeeeoeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeee eeee‘mmIOIOOOOI.O.0.0OO0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIM'" 1 2 3 4 ‘3 f. 6 {:3 7 ‘ 22. u“........... ......... .....'. ............... ...Q.QQ‘WOOIOIIIIOOI...00....OOOOOOOIOOIOOOOOOOOOIOstm 23s UflVFINIY. eeeeeeeeeeeee e eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee senoe‘"rmotc OOOOOOOOOOOOOO IO...000......It'dlolooll'r‘u‘y -. 1 2 3 4 ,. S i 6 I: 7 2‘. EmrntiCee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee esn‘mmc.I..0000......O.0.0....CIOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOIstm.* - 1 2 3 4 3 '6 Z 7 25. F‘.‘ibt.ooo .......................................... AwrmOOI. ........ .0...OII0.00000000IIOOIIOOOOOO.'.“ - - 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 26. Careless ............................................. Aversge ................ . .................. .......Cereful - 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 27. "otTVItd ............................................ ‘nr'w. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0.0.0....00OOIOICOCOOOOW“"‘“ - 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 28. Passive .............................................. Av.rm IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0......IOOOOIOCOOIOII“"“ - 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 29. Unsuccessful ......................................... Aversge ................................... .......Successful - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Unintelligent ........................................ Average .................................. ........lntelligsnt - 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 31. Extroverted .......................................... Average" ................................ ........lntroverted - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. Attentive ............................................ Averege. .................................... .....lnsttsntivs - 1 2 3 4 s 6 .7 33. Uncooperetive ........................................ Aversge...... ................. . ........... stive -' 1 2 3 4 s e .7 3‘s wmtiw eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeess‘mmeeeeeeeeessseeseseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeepm“w " 1 2 3 4 s a ,7 35s Af‘imlOEC eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeee‘mmeseeseeeeeesesseeseeseeseseeseeeeeeseeeOODIM‘w‘.t. -'- 1 z 3 4 5 6 H 7 36s F-inim. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeee‘mmeeeee eeeeeeeeeee e eeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeseeeeseemt‘m - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Questionnaire: p. 2 vs fern ”1417-1993 16:03 Generated by team Gym-ice In suture. FIGURE 15 (Cont’d) ".11.: 3*” .:'-‘¥~;é1;.'.-e:.;5§.”“F“??? "*- - 37. o“i.iv......0l....0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .0II......OOOOIO‘WmOCOOOIOOI......00......O......OOOOOOOOOOOOIm‘.i” -45.»; 1 z 3 4 5 6 7 x‘ 38. Emm.ocoeneseeessee eeeeee ens-eeneeeeeseeee eeeeee eeAnrmneee-e-IeeeeeneIoneonone-00000.00l00000000w. -22: 1 z 3 4 S 6 ‘ 7 39. Wt“000001000000 ..... 0 ........ .0000...I.I.......‘mmOIIIOIOIOOOOOI.I.0I............OIIOOIOOOOOEmt“ --” 1 - 2 3 4 5 6 ‘. 7 40. Honest .......... .. ........... . ........................ Averege..........................................Dishonset -' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. Herd-working .................................. ........Averege. ........... ..............................Lezy -' 1 2 3 4 S 6 42. Untrustworthy ......................................... Averege ........................ . ........ .. ..... ..Trustworthy - - 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 43. Nutritious ............................................. Averege ....................... ...................Mitiorl - 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 44. lmture .............................................. Average ......................................... .Meture - 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 4S. Fowler .................................. i. ........... Average ........................... ........ ...Umopuler - 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 46. Messy ................................................. Average ....................................... ...Neet - 1 2 3 4 S 6 47. Happy ................................................. Average ...................................... ....Urwisppy - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48. Heelthy ............. . ................................. Average ................ . .................. .......UMeelthy - 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 49.1nsecure ........... . ................... . .............. Averege...... ..... .Secure - 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 50. Undisciplined ......................................... Averege ......................... ........ ..... ....Oisciplinsd - 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 51. Confident....... ............................. .........Averege.. ............. . ....... .Unsure - 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 52. Attrective ................... . ........................ Average ...................... . ...... .............lhsttrective - 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 Questionnaire: P. 3 in fern 601-07499! 16:07 Genereted by Sewing Oyn-ics Inc seftt-ne. FIGURE 15 (Cont’d) - "’“%.."§5‘1MV SECTIG 111 Please review the “Scerierio‘ sheet end irdieste your response below. 33. Hitch position (if eny) would you recast thet Leslie m be hired into? -5”? A. Ill-i Resources Wits Anslvfl -4” I. Soles Representative -’W’i‘ c. Nurse-wit Treinee -57: 0. would not hire into eny position UN" 54. I think this person will be very successful in this position. Strongly M! i Diagr”eeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeee eeeeeeee eeeeeeeee'mr.teeenewseeessn0000.00.00.000000000000.” - ’ 1 2 3 4 S 6 _ 7 SS. whet sterting selery would you offer this indivimel? S per yesr AS A CHECR ON THE ACCURACY OF YOJR FIRST INPRESSIDN, PLEASE INDICATE NHAT YOJ RECALL A30." THIS PER“: THIS CANDIDATE HAS: I -’ S6. MALE FEMALE - 57. BLACK UNITE HISPANIC - 58. THIN AVERAGE DVERUEIGHT - 59. THIS CANDIDATE HAD: AN ASSOCIAIE'S DEGREE A BACHELm'S DEGREE A MASTER'S DEGREE - 60. THIS CANDIDATE HAD: 0-3 YEARS' EXPERIENCE 4-6 YEARS' EXPERIENCE 7-9 YEARS' EXPERIENCE 61. Pleese fill in the circle of the runner isiich most closely corresponds to your enswer to this «notion: when I viewed this videotape, there were people or cheirs between as end the TV wonitor. -_“;,:, o -1 1 -., 2 -1 3 -.w 4 - 5 - 1 6 --. 7 .. 3 - 9 or more Questionnaire : P. 4 saw fore 01-07-1993 16:09 canted by security Wes In sofa-re. FIGURE 15 (Cont’d) - 323$; "'->r,2‘:./r9>:- , - M» u . w, ~ , ' v ‘ ..-.-' “g . ‘ ‘ --'f:$4;i.‘\‘-:41V;:§$‘ film -. fi-‘ok?:¢t-f-l~)$2"»:7=n>9, ‘ . “v' ‘ “ma minutiae 1, cl? DWNIC DATA: 866"“ A 7; In the I!” of social behavior it is useful to know as and: as possible sum the indivilh-ls preview! the inter-ti.- Pleese DESCRIBE 10.!qu by filling out the following q-stions as cowletely as possible. Vou- n- is not aid ell infer-tion will be kept anonynu are! confidential. PLEAI USE so. 2 PM“. AD PILL m WV 1 . ‘ 7" s . - $34 - age-:41 - 5334/. - :1'1' - -';-':3: .. - £3“: ”f 6. - 22:55:; a, - :1:I--' 2 - 554;; 9. - - ‘--- - - 2:: - - A - :~. - ‘ 1 0 . 1 T - ' ' ' 12 . 13 . - .- 16 . - ,Li'. - 5:3;1‘ - 725;: - rix ' - :5"? - 5* 15 C - ‘ 16. - 1+1. - ;.—;;-:- - 5:51 - 3;": - 1:1' ‘7 - ;:;;1 . - {.553}:- - 1.4-. Sex: F.“ Nale Age: 3. Heiflit: 6. Hold“: Please indicate your racial/ethnic backgrolnd: (A) mite/Caucasian (I) African-Anerican (C) Nispanic (D) Asian/Pacific Islander ' (E) Native Anerican/Inuit (F) Other: Hair Color: 7. Eye Color: Do you wear: Glasses Contact Lenses Both Neither what is the highest level of education you have completed? (A) Eighth grade or less (B) Sons high scnool (C) High school (D) Sons college (E) College graduate (F) Sons graduate work (G) Master's degree (N) Graduate Hort beyond master‘s degree (I) Ph.D./Doctoral degree If you are a student, what is your major? If you are not presently a student, what was your naior area of study or primary training alphas”? iiajor/Ethcation: . If you are employed, what is your 100? Occlpation: 0R Check here if you are not presently “loved. How long have you been in the workforce? Years: what is/was your father's occwotion, if any? Occupation: 0R Check here if he was/is not eoployed. Uhat is/was your father's highest level of educational attaiment? Education: (A) Eighth grade or less (8) Sons high school (C) high school (0) Some college (E) College graduate (F) Sone graduate work (6) Nester's degree (ii) Graduate work beyond mter's degree (I) Ph.D./Doctoral degree what is/was your mother‘s occupation, if any? Occlpation: DR Check here if she was] is not «played. UM! '08 your nother's highest level of edscational ettaiment? Emcation: (A) Eighth grade or less (I) Sons hidi school (C) High school (0) Sons college (E) College grmte m u. "m" m Questionnaire: P. 5 (G) Naster's degree (ii) Son grad-ts work beyond .ster's degree (I) Ph.o./I)octoral degree I'll for. Iii-074993 16:1) Galierated by Scamim DyI-iea In senior-e. FIGURE 15 (Cont’d) -:;.<:‘ “&>¢.’rfi:7?¢-‘.¥2'WJ~YZ$:§ weave: ':-‘ .- - ' 2.559% “24......“ '3’L413;-;-;Z>J£.¢$§;3$-53§.41 section I: 95 iv?! “a. W< “ ’”' figflfllfiljfifllfljwfiiilhwffié 3“,”: ' V“ l’;' ." ... . v.2. .3 ‘. . ‘ My . .....v. -.r/.:.f.\ \ , aux-g swig-'3‘ 4.3;: . weaned-)6 «XI».- .1- I K IA." -§;Plaase fill in the nulber of the response which best corresponds to how you see YOURSELF. 17. “......DOO...-......IOCOOOOOOIOOO...00-0.0"......‘mmOCIOOOOOOOIOOI0..........DOOOOOO......Oooos‘m 1 Z 3 6 S .j 6 if 7 1a. Emm‘iCOIOOOIIOIIOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ...‘nrmOOIOIOOOOOOIOOOC......O.‘......CCCOOOIOOIOStm‘u 1 2 3 6 5 f 6 i 7 I9 :rrnw. .A ~ - . '.‘,' nun-.1.msqufl-mw’vvul-'.\~.'.-.'.'-h‘.'-\21.x?» 1-‘.\v,v.-.‘.-. .~. . ft.‘ibt.....l..'-II ....... .... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII OIIAV.rmOOOIOO....IOI....COCO.........C...O.C.....Ri"d 2 3 6 ' 20. 21. 22. 26. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29 30 31. "otiv.t“..000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .‘nr...l....lo.IO.............OCOOOOC......O....Imt‘"‘“ 1 2 3 6 S 6 7 Passive ........................................... ...Average .............. .... .......... ..............Activs 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 v . . . ......... ........ H...l..-.....”..‘uu-upuMu...... Unsuccessful ......................................... Average .......................................... Successful 2 3 6 S 6 7 Extroverted ..... . ........... . ........................ Average ................................. .........Introverted 1 2 3 6 5 6 Unintelligent ........................................ Average ................................... .......Intelligent 1 2 3 6 S 6 7 Feminine ............................................. Average. ....... . ................................. Masculine 1 2 3 6 S 6 7 1 2 3 6 S Immature ................... .. ........................ Average.......... ........ ........................Nature 1 2 3 6 S 6 7 v,-.v,'..\~/.-.\~ any. . - 7 .. _ , , ‘ _ W, A ”1...“, ‘_ , .. .... . _ .. V . ‘ .. .v H , », ' n ~.\-/ -.'.v-‘\ .-.-.~A~.~.~.v~.- -/.-a-. «‘.\\\\-wwlrl Incapable ................... .......... ..... ... ....... Average.. ......... . ..... . ....... .................Capable 1 Z 3 6 5 6 7 Nealthy...................... ..... ...................Average..........................................Unhealthy 1 2 3 6 5 6 UMi‘Ciplim“' nnnnnnnnnnnn e sssssssssss eseeaees...ae‘"f.,.eeeeaeeeeeaeeeaeeeeaeaaeeeeeeseaeeeeeseaeeoiuiptiw 1 2 3 6 S 6 T At‘rutiv.l...OIl.Ool.l......OOIOODOOOOOOO ........ O..‘v.r.'..............l00......I.OCOCO-......OOOOIOUmt‘mt.” 1 2 3 6 S 6 Questionnaire: P. 6 IPN fora .01-07-1993 16:16 Generated by Scanning Dyna-ics Inc software.. FIGURE 15 (Cont’d) 96 MEMO TO: FROM: Gail E. Sype, Management/Marketing Department RE: Experiment Administration DATE: Thank you for agreeing to conduct this experiment in your class. Accompanying this letter you will find a set of ratings packets; one packet should be provided to each individual who agrees to serve as a subject in the experiment. Also provided is a copy of the video resume which raters are asked to view. You are asked to pass out packets to all raters and to start the video once everyone has received a packet. Ask raters to review the instructions provided in their ratings packets and give them a few minutes to review the materials enclosed. Also, ask raters to fill in the questionnaire as completely as possible. Please ask raters to FILL IN THE CIRCLES ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE rather than circling the numbers as the videotape recommends. Please stress to raters that they are being asked to indicate their FIRST IMPRESSIONS of the individual being viewed; PLEASE. 29 N91 TELL RATERS AN! . R .E, is, ,1} Y. 91 ,1, ;AOW A3. 3 ,1 ' J. '._, . ,9, . RESEARQEA Raters’ familiarity with the detailed purposes of the research project could bias their responses. If you have already told students the purpose of the experiment, please do not let them see the video or fill in the questionnaires. Instead, call me and I will pick the materials back up from you. Raters are asked.to return all materials to their ratings packets and.return.the completed.packets toiyou.when‘they'have finished the complete questionnaire. I will pick up the packets and the videotape (rewound, if possible) from you at a later date. Please let me know if you need me to return the VCR and monitor to the library. Thank you again for your assistance in this endeavor. P.S. Please inform students that they are asked not to discuss this experiment with other students. Thank you. FKEURElfi INSTRUCHWDNS1K)EXPERHMENTHADNHNRYHLNDORS 97 (Video Script) "Hello. My name is Leslie Anderson and I'd like to take this opportunity --via videotape--to tell you a little about myself." "I am a graduate student in the Master of Business Administration program at Peoria State University. I expect to graduate this summer and am seeking employment beginning immediately thereafter. "Let me begin by telling you about my educational background. I have majored in general business at Peoria State, and have a minor in the area of marketing. My overall grade point average is 3.3 and I have carried a course load of six to ten credits per term. The MBA program took me two years to complete because for both of those years, I also worked as the store manager for Hartwig Florals here in Peoria." "My undergraduate degree was received in 1985. I have a BBA from Central State University in Greenwood, Wisconsin. I had a major in finance and a minor in Spanish. My overall GPA at Central State was 3.25." "Prior to coming into the MBA program, I spent a year travelling extensively throughout Central and South America. I had always been interested in that area of the world and decided to take the opportunity to explore it while I had the chance. I had minored in Spanish as an undergraduate and took the opportunity to increase my fluency and my understanding of those cultures at the same time." "In summary, then: My undergraduate degree in business was obtained at Central State University in 1985. I had a major in finance and a minor in Spanish. After graduation I worked for about a year and a half as a sales representative for Superior Restaurant Supplies of Waukegan. I left that position to work for a year and a half as a credit analyst for Martin’s Furniture. I then spent two years as a payroll clerk for Evans' Greenhouse. Both of these firms were also in Waukegan. I then moved to Peoria after a year in South America to enter the MBA program and have worked for the past two years as the store manager for Hartwig Florals. I am majoring in general business at Peoria State and have a minor in marketing." "Special skills that you may be interested in are these: I am fluent in Spanish, familiar with central and south American cultures, and am familiar with several inventory control and spreadsheet programs. My hobbies are travel, biking, and reading." "I would like an opportunity to discuss my experience with you further. My phone number and address are provided on the enclosed data sheet. Please feel free to call me with questions or to schedule an interview. Thank you for your time." FIGURE 17 FHEALEKEUPTIKEE)HJVTDEO 98 The null hypothesis for this experiment was that the mean ratings of all candidates’ qualifications would be approximately equal. However, from the prior research which has been conducted in this field, several hypotheses can identified (see Research Issues and Hypotheses section, page 62, above). In brief, however, the following hypotheses were tested: First, although qualifications and verbal statements were held constant across candidates, the persistent social prejudice against the obese was expected to produce results reflecting more negative ratings for the obese candidates than average-weight candidates. The general negative stereotype of the obese could also lead to average-weight candidates’ being evaluated more positively for positions which require greater contact with others, such as sales or managerial positions (Klassen, 1987). Obese candidates will receive lower ratings on measures designed to tap applicant ”likability” and "employability; " that is, questions that are designed to assess the extent to which raters view the candidate positively or negatively in terms of their personality and work experience. The questionnaire used in this research to measure these outcomes was designed for use in this study. The first sixteen items in the questionnaire are 7—point Likert-scale items, with endpoints of ”strongly disagree" and "strongly agree" and which ask subjects to respond in general to measures of the candidate’s ”likability,” which include questions about preferences for the individual as a co—worker, supervisor, or subordinate. 99 Measures of the candidate’s ”employability” include questions regarding the individual’s capacity to be a good boss, to be productive, to be an effective spokesperson and use good communication skills, to be an effective leader, to be self-directed, and other related aspects of performance. Included are questions which assess the candidate’s desirability as a coworker, a supervisor, a subordinate, as a spokesperson for an organization, and as a manager in general. Also included are items which ask the respondent to indicate the extent to which she or he agrees that the candidate viewed has strong skills in areas such as communication, decision-making, leadership, performance, and self—direction. See Figure 15, pages 90 - 95 for a copy of the questionnaire. In an attempt to assess whether there were other influences on raters’ responses that were not tapped by the first set of questions, questions seventeen through twenty asked respondents to generate qualitative, descriptive reactions to the candidate. In item seventeen, raters were asked to provide three adjectives to describe the applicant’s W- In question eighteen, respondents were asked to give three adjectives to describe the candidate’s workhjstgry. Question nineteen asked raters to briefly describe the candidate’s strengths and question twenty asked for a description of the candidate’s weaknesses. Responses to the adjective requests were alphabetized by candidate and coded as being positive, negative, or "neutral" in content. Responses to the "strengths" and ”weaknesses" questions were coded as to what domain they tapped. While no firm conclusions will be drawn about these descriptors, they did provide additional insights into the perceptions of the candidates by each group of raters. The goal of their inclusion was to provide an opportunity to tap into responses that might not be generated by the domains covered within items 1-16. 100 Given that all respondents rated candidates with the same qualifications and that the level of attractiveness (exclusive of the manipulation of the perceived weight of the candidate) and the verbal statements of the candidates were held constant across the candidates, one would expect approximately equal ratings for all four "candidates" if no bias were operating. However, given the preference in the general population for physical attractiveness, biases against the obese candidates, and especially the obese female candidate, were expected to influence outcome variables. The obese candidates were thus expected to generate lower ratings on items one through sixteen, with the obese female candidate expected to receive the lowest ratings. As an additional measure of their perceptions of the candidate, respondents were also asked to respond to semantic differential scales used to assess perceptions of the candidate’s personality and attributes. This scale consisted of the items found on pages two and three of the questionnaire (see Figure 15, pages 90-95) and are items 21 through 52 of the questionnaire. These ratings scales are based on the original work done by Osgood (1957) and his colleagues. Scores across items were compared to assess differences in evaluations of the four candidates. If significant trends had been found, an exploratory factor analysis was planned to assess differences in the dimensions underlying the ratings of each candidate. Items included in the semantic-differential scale were drawn from the literature on obesity, physical attractiveness and characterizations of managers in general. Specifically, the items which tested strength, potency,self-control, healthiness and security (the polar opposites of ”weak-strong, " "energetic-sluggish, " "passive-active, " 101 "careless-careful, " "immature-mature, " ”popular-unpopular, " "messy-neat, " "healthy- unhealthy, " ”insecure-secure, " and ”undisciplined-disciplined") were included because the adjectives "weak,” ”sluggish,” "passive," "careless," "immature,” "unpopular," "messy," "unhealthy, " "insecure” and "undisciplined" are often used to characterize the obese. Also included in the semantic differential scale were adjectives which have often been used to characterize the physically attractive or which are representative of the higher levels of positive social outcomes which the attractive are presumed to possess (the polar opposites of "superior-inferior, " ”unfriendly-friendly, " "successful- unsuccessful, " ”unintelligent-intelligent, " "articulate-inarticulate, " "incapable-capable, " "honest-dishonest, " ”untrustworthy-trustworthy, " ”happy-unhappy, " ”confident- unsure, " and "attractive-unattractive"). The remaining items included were based on dimensions often used as descriptors of managers in general. Drawn from the work of Heilman et al. (1979, 1984, 1989), the items ask respondents to assess characteristics of the individual which could be relevant to managerial performance (i.e. , ”flexible-rigid, " "motivated- unmotivated, " ”extroverted—introverted, " "attentive-inattentive, " "uncooperative cooperative, " "unproductive-productive, " ”decisive-indecisive, " "uneducated-educated, " “hard working-lazy, " , ”ambitious-unambitious"). In addition to the measures designed to tap likability and employability, raters were asked to indicate their evaluations of the candidate’s suitability for different 102 positions by indicating whether they would hire the applicant and if so, into what sort of position (question 53 on page 4 of the questionnaire; see Figure 15, page 93). Raters were also provided space (item 53b) to indicate (in free—form written response) their reasons for selecting the candidate for a specific position. Respondents were also asked to rate the candidate’s likelihood of job success (item 54) and indicate a starting salary for the candidate if they chose to hire the individual (item 55). When making specific job assignments, raters reviewed descriptions of three different positions open within an organization and were asked to indicate whether they would choose to hire this person and, upon hiring, where they would prefer to place this candidate. One dependent variable, therefore, was raters’ decisions to hire or not to hire the candidate. A second related dependent variable was the nature of the position that was recommended, if a decision to hire was made. A third dependent variable was the average salary level offered within each condition, since raters who recommended hiring were also asked to indicate a recommended starting salary for the candidate. The three positions given as options for placement include the position of Human Resources Benefits Analyst, Sales Representative, and Management Trainee. (More extensive descriptions are provided in the ”Scenario" page; see Figure 14, page 89). Each position was chosen in an effort to describe jobs which would represent a spectrum of desirability and visibility within a corporation. The Human Resources Benefits Analyst is the position which is least desirable. It offers the lowest salary levels and is limited in terms of potential for promotion and visibility to upper-level management. This job offers few opportunities for social 103 interaction or work-related contact with others, whether they might be internal staff or the public. The Sales Representative position is intended as a position of moderate desirability. It is described as involving more contact with outsiders, requiring more travel, and being more lucrative than the Human Resources Benefits Analyst position. It is hypothesized that obese candidates will be less likely to be assigned to this position, since the literature indicates that there is a reluctance to assign obese individuals to sales jobs (Everett, 1990; Bellizzi et al., 1989). The Management Trainee position is intended as the most desirable position. It offers more career opportunities, more access to upper level management, and the greatest possibility for financial remuneration. This position also requires relatively high levels of contact with outsiders and with upper-level management. In line with the findings reported herein, it is hypothesized that raters will be unlikely to assign obese candidates (Baum, 1987) or female candidates (Heilman et al, 1979, 1985, 1989) to this position. A manipulation check of a group of undergraduate student raters’ perceptions of these positions indicated that raters did generally perceive the jobs in the intended hierarchy of desirability. Thirty-three undergraduate student raters (a group different from the previous sets of pretest raters; demographic data not collected on this group of subjects) reviewed the position descriptions and ranked jobs in " l , 2, 3 " order (from greatest to least desirability). Results indicated that raters perceived the Human Resources Benefits Analyst position as least desirable (mean = 2.39, SD. = .78) and the Management Trainee position as most desirable (mean = 1.39, SD. .65). Results were mixed 104 regarding evaluations of the Sales Representative position, in that it was rated as significantly less desirable than the Management Trainee position (mean = 2.21, SD. = .64), but was not significantly different from the mean desirability rating of the Human Resources Benefits Analyst position. The value obtained for Sales Representative, however, is not significantly different from the value of "2, " indicating moderate desirability. In addition to respondents’ hiring preferences, their general perceptions of the candidate were assessed. Raters were asked to respond to a series of questions regarding their perceptions of the candidate’s desirability as supervisor, coworker, and subordinate. Respondents were also asked to rate the extent to which the candidate is likely to succeed, and to respond to questions about the individual’s likability and suitability for employment, and their general level of job-related skills (see page 1 of the questionnaire, Figure 15, page 90). Since it is possible that ratings on different variables may be interrelated, analysis of covariance was utilized to determine the degree of interrelationship among these outcome variables. As a manipulation check, raters were asked to indicate whether the candidate they viewed was male or female; black, white or Hispanic; and thin, average, or overweight (items 56, 57, 58). They were also asked to indicate the candidate’s level of education (associate’s, bachelor’s, or master’s degree) and the amount of experience the candidate possessed (0-3 years, 46 years, or 7-9 years) (items 59 and 60). Additionally, it was felt that since the key stimulus was presented in a video format, the possibility existed that individuals’ ratings might be affected by how clearly they could see the stimulus individual. Thus it was determined that a measure of distance 105 from the video screen should be recorded to assess the possible influence of location on rater perceptions. Accordingly, item 61 asked subjects to indicate how many "people or chairs" there were between the viewer and the video monitor. They had ten response choices, ranging from ”0" to "9 or more. " Responses were then collapsed into three categories (”O-3," ”4—6” and ”7-9+ " chairs) for purposes of analysis. The frequencies of people in each response category are listed in Table 1, which follows. These categories were then used as predictors for the items of candidate salary (question 55), candidate race, gender, education and experience to determine if location might have had an effect on raters’ perceptions. As can be seen in Table 2, the rater’s location did not significantly affect values on any of the other variables. TABLE 1 FREQUENCIES 0F RESPONDENT LOCATION Valid Cu: ___!§12e_Label, Valu e enc rcen ent Percen 9 People 0r Chairs 0 9 3.1 3.1 3.1 0 People 0r Chairs 1 84 28.5 28.5 31.5 1 People 0r Chairs 2 54 18.3 18.3 49.8 2 People 0r Chairs 3 41 13.9 13.9 63.7 3 People 0! Chairs 4 48 16.3 16.3 80.0 4 People 0r Chairs 5 27 9.2 9.2 89.2 5 People 01‘ Chairs 6 10 3.4 3.4 92.5 6 People 0r Chairs 7 17 5.8 5.8 98.3 7 People 0r Chairs 8 3 1.0 1.0 99.3 8 People 0r Chairs 9 2 .7 .7 100.0 Total 295 100.0 100.0 Mean: 2.925 Std dev.: 1.964 Hinilul: .000 Maxi-n]: 9.000 Valid cases 295 Kissing cases 0 1CN5 7f7\l31.[£ 12 INFLUENCE OF LOCATION ON RATER ASSESSMENTS Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. CANDSAL Starting Salary Offered FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. RECINF COIb. 0-3 chairs 22664.319 9397.347 RECINF COIb. 4-6 Chairs 22067.833 8789.903 For entire sample 22554.621 9275.074 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F—tests with (1,259) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Hypotb. MS CANDSAL 13937366.49052 22353081496.9577 13937366.49052 Variable .. CANDSEX Candidate's Sex FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. RECINF COIb. 0-3 chairs 1.502 .501 RECINF Conb. 4-6 chairs 1.542 .504 For entire sanple 1.510 .501 EFFECT .. RECIMF Univariate F-tests with (1,259) D. F. Variable Eypotb. SS Error 58 Eypotb. MS CANDSEX .06056 65.16549 .06056 Variable .. CINDRACE Candidate’s Race FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. RECINF Conb. 0-3 chairs 2.000 .000 RECINF Conb. 4-6 chairs 2.000 .000 For entire salple 2.000 .000 EFFECT .. RECIMF Univariate F-tests with (1,259) D. F. Variable Eypotb. SS Error SS Hypoth. MS CANDRACE 00000 00000 .00000 Variable .. CANDWT Candidate’s Weight FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. RECINP COIb. 0-3 chairs 2.338 .548 RECINP COIb. 4-6 chairs 2.375 .531 For entire salple 2.345 .544 rrrrcr .. nacrur Univariate F-tests with (1,259) n. r. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Hypotb. MS CANDUT .05355 76.91197 .05355 N 95 percent Conf. Interval 213 21395.061 23933.577 48 19515.511 24620.155 261 21424.118 23685.123 Error MS F Sig. of F 86305333.96509 .16149 .688 N 95 percent Conf. Interval 213 1.435 1.570 48 1.395 1.688 261 1.449 1.571 Error MS F Sig. of F .25160 .24070 .624 N 95 percent Conf. Interval 213 2.000 2.000 48 2.000 2.000 261 2 000 2.000 Error MS F Sig. of F It 95 percent Conf . Interval 213 2.264 2.412 48 2.221 2.529 261 2.279 2.411 Error MS F Sig. of F .29696 .18031 .671 1(I7 TABLE 2 (Cont’d) Variable .. CAMDDEG Candidate’s Degree FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 95 percent Conf. Interval RECINF COIb. 0-3 chairs 2.620 .487 213 2.554 2.685 RECINF COIb. 4-6 chairs 2.562 .501 48 2.417 2.708 For entire salple 2.609 .489 261 2.550 2.669 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (1,259) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Eypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F CANDDEG .12825 62.00968 .12825 .23942 .53566 .465 Variable .. CANDEXP Candidate’s Experience FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 95 percent Conf. Interval RECINF COIb. 0-3 chairs 2.080 .539 213 2.007 2.153 RECINF COIb. 4-6 chairs 2.146 .505 48 1.999 2.292 For entire sanple 2.092 .533 261 2.027 2.157 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (1,259) D. F. Variable Hypotb. SS Error 58 Eypotb. MS Error MS F Sig. of F CANDEXP .17074 73.62236 .17074 .28426 .60067 .439 Variable .. CANDSAL Starting Salary Offered FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 95 percent Conf. Interval RECINF COIb. 4-6 Chairs 22067.833 8789.903 48 19515.511 24620.155 RECINF COIb. 7-9+ chairs 24833.333 8408.149 12 19491.051 30175.616 For entire salple 22620.933 8716.262 60 20369.284 24872.583 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (1,58) D. F. Variable Eypotb. SS Error SS Hypotb. MS Error MS F Sig. of F CANDSAL 73420706.40000 4408999337.33333 73420706.40000 76017229.95402 .96584 .330 Variable .. CANDSEX Candidate’s Sex FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 95 percent Conf. Interval RECINF Conb. 4-6 chairs 1.542 .504 48 1.395 1.688 RECINF COIb. 7-9+ chairs 1.667 .492 12 1.354 1.980 For entire salple 1.567 .500 60 1.438 1.696 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (1,58) D. F. Variable Eypotb. SS Error 55 Eypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F CANDSEX .15000 14.58333 .15000 .25144 .59657 .443 1(18 TABLE 2 (Cont’d) Variable .. CANDRACE Candidate’s Race FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. RECINF Conb. 4-6 chairs 2.000 .000 RECINF Conb. 7-9+ chairs 2.000 .000 For entire sample 2.000 .000 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (1,58) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Eypoth. MS CANDRACE .00000 .00000 .00000 Variable .. CANDMT Candidate's Weight FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. RECINF Conb. 4-6 chairs 2.375 .531 RECINF COlb. 7-9+ chairs 2.250 .452 For entire salple 2.350 .515 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (1,58) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Eypoth. MS CANDWT .15000 15.50000 .15000 Variable .. CANDDEG Candidate's Degree FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. RECINF COIb. 4-6 chairs 2.562 .501 RECINF Conb. 7-9+ chairs 2.583 .515 For entire sanple 2.567 .500 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (1,58) D. F. Variable Eypotb. SS Error SS Hypoth. MS CANDDEG 00417 14.72917 .0041? Variable .. CANDEXP Candidate’s Experience FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. RECINF COIb. 4-6 chairs 2.146 .505 RECINF Conb. 7-9+ chairs 2.083 .515 For entire sanple 2.133 .503 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (1,58) D. F. Variable Eypoth. SS Error SS Eypoth. MS CANDEXP .03750 14.89583 .03750 N 95 percent Conf. Interval 48 2.000 2.000 12 2.000 2.000 60 2.000 2.000 Error MS F Sig. of F .00000 . M 95 percent Conf. Interval 48 2.221 2.529 12 1.963 2.537 60 2.217 2.483 Error MS F Sig. of F .26724 .56129 .457 M 95 percent Conf. Interval 48 2.417 2.708 12 2.256 2.911 60 2.438 2.696 Error MS F Sig. of F .25395 .01641 .899 N 95 percent Conf. Interval 48 1.999 2.292 12 1.756 2.411 60 2.003 2.263 Error MS F Sig. of F .25682 .14601 .704 1(X9 TABLE 2 (Cont’d) Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. CANDSAL Starting Salary Offered FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. RECINF COlb. 0-3 chairs 22664.319 9397.347 RECINF COIb. 4-6 chairs 22067.833 8789.903 RECINF Comb. 7-9+ chairs 24833.333 8408.149 For entire salple 22654.784 9236.329 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (2,270) D. F. 213 48 12 273 Error MS F 85669437.64305 213 48 12 273 213 48 12 273 213 48 12 273 95 percent Conf. Interval 23933.577 24620.155 30175.616 23755.316 21395.061 19515.511 19491.051 21554.251 Sig. of F .42903 .652 Variable Eypoth. SS Error SS Eypotb. MS CANDSAL 73508824.62467 23130748163.6244 36754412.31234 Variable .. CAMDSEX Candidate’s Sex FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. 95 percent Conf. Interval RECINF COIb. 0-3 chairs 1.502 .501 1.435 1.570 RECINF COIb. 4-6 chairs 1.542 .504 1.395 1.688 RECINF COIb. 7-9+ chairs 1.667 .492 1.354 1.980 For entire sasple 1.516 .501 1.457 1.576 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (2,270) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Eypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F CANDSEX .34366 67.83216 17183 .25123 .68396 .505 Variable .. CANDRACE Candidate’s Race FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. 95 percent Conf. Interval RECINF COIb. 0-3 Chairs 2.000 .000 2.000 2.000 RECINF C0lb. 4-6 chairs 2.000 .000 2.000 2.000 RECINF Conb. 7-9 chairs 2.000 .000 2.000 2.000 For entire salple 2.000 .000 2.000 2.000 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (2,270) D. F. Variable Eypoth. SS Error 85 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F CANDRACE .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 Variable .. CAMDRT Candidate’s Weight FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. 95 percent Conf. Interval RECINF COIb. 0-3 Chairs 2.338 .548 2.264 2.412 RECINF C0lb. 4-6 chairs 2.375 .531 2.221 2.529 RECINF COIb. 7-9+ chairs 2.250 .452 1.963 2.537 For entire sanple 2.341 .540 2.276 2.405 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (2,270) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 83 Error SS Eypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F CANDMT .15671 79.16197 .07835 .29319 .26725 .766 11() TABLE 2 (Cont’d) Variable .. CANDDEG Candidate’s Degree FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 95 percent Conf. Interval RECINF COIb. 0-3 chairs 2.620 .487 213 2.554 2.685 RECINF Comb. 4-6 Chairs 2.562 .501 48 2.417 2.708 RECINF COIb. 7-9+ chairs 2.583 .515 12 2.256 2.911 For entire salple 2.608 .489 273 2.550 2.666 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (2,270) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Eypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F CANDDEG .13592 64.92635 .06796 .24047 .28262 .754 Variable .. CANDEXP Candidate’s Experience FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 95 percent Conf . Interval RECINF COIb. 0-3 Chairs 2.080 .539 213 2.007 2.153 RECINF COIb. 4-6 chairs 2.146 .505 48 1.999 2.292 RECINF C0lb. 7-9+ chairs 2.083 .515 12 1.756 2.411 For entire sample 2.092 .531 273 2.028 2.155 EFFECT .. RECINF Univariate F-tests with (2,270) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F CANDEXP .17160 76.53903 .08580 .28348 .30266 .739 111 4 m hi Demographic data was gathered on raters (see page 5 of the questionnaire, Figure 15, page 94). Morrow’s (1990) work hypothesized the influence of perceived similarity between rater and applicant as a positive influence on applicant likability. Work by Kennedy and Homants (1982) indicated differential patterns of responses toward obese candidates depending upon the undergraduate background of the respondents. Given these findings, and given that much of the work regarding the study of obesity has explored rater reactions rather than rater characteristics, there is a need to assess covariates of prejudice toward the obese. Rater gender and age were assessed as covariates, as were rater weight status (obese/nonobese), and rater socioeconomic status (SES). The first item included in the list of rater demographics (item 1) was the gender of the raters. 295 subjects completed the experiment. There were 115 males (39% of the total) and 180 females (61%) in the sample. Males and females were found in the four experimental conditions in the numbers listed in Table 3. TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF MALES AND FEMALES BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION CANDIDATE A B c D MALE? 27 H 21 i 32 __ 35 FEMALES ' 43 ' 63 ’ 36 i "8 ' i " ' ’ (61.4% of (75% of (53% of (52% of this WWW TOTALS: 70 84 68 73 112 Raters were also asked to indicate their age (item 2). The average age of subjects in the experiment was 34; the average age of respondents within each experimental condition was as follows: Candidate A: 34.8 years Candidate B: 34.4 years Candidate C: 35.1 years; Candidate D: 32.0 years. Analysis of variance indicated that these values were not significantly different from each other at p < .05. Raters were then asked to indicate their height and weight (items 3 and 4). These values were used to generate an index of obesity by comparing rater characteristics with general population characteristics. Rater obese/nonobese status was assessed via the use of standard height-weight tables devised by Metropolitan Life Insurance (see Figure 6, page 74 for a copy of this table). These values are used to represent the ideal height! weight combinations which indicate the lowest risk of morbidity or mortality. The original table provided ideal weights for small, medium and large frames; given that it was not possible to assess whether each individual respondent was of a small, medium, or large frame, the endpoints of each set of ranges for a given height were averaged together to arrive at a single index which was applied to all respondents (see Figure 6, page 74). These height-weight values were used to calculate an obesity index for each individual. Subjects who were 20% or more above height-weight limits given in Figure 6 were classified as obese; all others were classified as non-obese. The frequencies of individuals falling into these categories were as listed in Table 4. 113 TABLE 4 FREQUENCY OF RESPONDENTS’ OBESITY Obese Non-Obese Candidate A 12 55 (17.9% of this subgroup) (82.1% of this subgroup) Candidate B 6 74 7 o f ' 2 o f Candidate C 12 53 o f ' 1 a Candidate D 16 56 2 2 o f ' 77 f TOTALS: 46 238 (16.2% of total) (838% of total) Raters were asked to indicate their ethnic/racial background (item 5). Of the 295 subjects, 269 (91.2%) were Caucasian, 13 (4.4%) were African-American, 3 were Hispanic (1%), 7 were Asian/ Pacific Islanders (2.4%), 1 was Native American/Inuit (.3 %), and 2 people classified themselves as "Other" ethnicity (.7%). Respondents were asked to indicate their hair color (item 6) and eye color (item 7). They were also asked whether they wore corrective lenses of any sort. These demographic items were not subjected to analysis since their purpose in inclusion was primarily distraction; it was hoped that their inclusion within the questionnaire would make the items of height and weight less salient to raters as possible variables of interest. Item 9 within the demographics asked raters to indicate the highest level of education that they had completed. Given that nearly all subject were graduate students, virtually all had completed ”some graduate work" (response F). Level of education was requested, as was information on occupation (item 11), so that rater socioeconomic status (SES) could be measured. 114 In terms of their levels of educational attainment, subjects had the following characteristics (see Table 5, below) TABLE 5 ’ TI Educational Level Number Some College 13 College Graduate 18 Some Graduate Work 224 Master’s Degree 21 Work Beyond Master’s l4 Ph.D./Doctoral Degree 2 Multiple/ Missing Answers 3 E Percent of Total 4.5% 6.2% 75.9% 7.1% 4.8% 0.7% 1.0% The number of years of work experience was also assessed (item 12), with the following results: Subjects in the sample had an average number of 11.85 years of work experience, with the mean number of years of work experience for raters in each condition being as follows: TABLE 6 RATERS’ WORK EXPERIENCE CANDIDAIE W Candidate A 13.37 years Candidate B 10.74 years Candidate C 13.23 years WM 5.2. 7.38 8.04 7.59 6.52 IZ ease 115 These results indicate that subjects viewing candidate A had significantly more work experience than subjects viewing candidates B and D (p < .05); subjects viewing candidate C also had more work experience than those viewing candidates B and D, but this difference only approached statistical significance (p = .06). Subjects were also asked to indicate their major (item 10). This item was included because it has been found in previous research (Homant and Kennedy, 1982) that individuals from different academic backgrounds tend to rate differently. Subjects were classified as business or non-business majors and the frequencies in each category were as follows: FREQUENCIES OF BUSINESS/NONPEJIIESIFNESS MAJORS IN RATING POOL Business Non-Business Candidate A 37 33 Candidate B 29 55 Candidate C 31 36 Candidate D 37 35 TOTAL 134 159 Rater SES (items 11 and 13 through 16) is of interest because obesity has been shown to be correlated with lower SES (Sobol and Stunkard, 1990). If lower SES is related to higher incidences of obesity, then individuals of lower socioeconomic status may respond more leniently to obesity because it is a characteristic familiar to them. A 116 measure of occupation was desirable because, as is noted by Powers, "occupation is the most adequate single indicator of position in a complex stratification system” (1981, p. 2). However, as Powers (1981) also noted, education is also a useful indicator of status and may be considered as an adjunct to the measure of occupation (p. 7). The Hollingshead 2-factor (education and occupation) measure of socioeconomic status was used to evaluate the SES of the rater. Responses regarding demographic characteristics were analyzed via analysis of covariance to determine if there were any findings regarding the personal attributes of raters which correlate with prejudice (or lack thereof) against the obese. This procedure, as described in Miller (1977), combines level of education with occupation to produce an index of socioeconomic status. Specifically, the Hollingshead measure combines level of education with occupation to produce an overall score for an individual which places them into one of five categories: Category 1: Upper Class Category 2: Upper-Middle Class Category 3: Lower-Middle Class Category 4: Upper-Lower Class Category 5: Lower Class Since education contributes a significant portion of the variance on this measure and since the majority of subjects were graduate students, there is relatively little variance within this category. Many subjects were classified as being in category two (upper-middle class) primarily on the basis of their level of educational attainment. Due to this restriction of range, there were not sufficient subjects in the other categories to analyze socioeconomic status as a covariate of ratings. Table 8 details subjects’ ranking according to socioeconomic status by candidate. 117 TABLE 8 RESPONDENTS’ SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS CANDIDATE: A B C D Upper-Class 4 6 2 10 Upper-Middle Class 56 60 57 47 Lower-Middle Class 5 6 1 8 Upper-Lower Class 4 10 0 1 Lower Class 0 0 0 1 TOTALS: 69 82 60 67 4 1 mm Final research analysis consisted of, first, an examination of the outcome variables directly related to employment. That is, did respondents recommend hiring the candidate; if so, into what job; and at what starting salary (questions 53 and 55)? When hiring recommendations were made, were there differences across candidates and/ or jobs in the level of confidence the rater had regarding the candidate’s success (item 54)? Second, the pattern of responses to "likability " and "employability" questions was analyzed to determine if there were differences in patterns of responses which underlay raters’ decisions. 118 Third, the underlying dimensions of the semantic differential scale were analyzed to determine differences across experimental conditions. Fourth, ”free-form" responses were analyzed to see if conclsions could be drawn about the positives and negatives perceived and reported by the raters themselves. Finally, rater demographics were analyzed to determine if there were rater factors which covaried with differences in ratings across conditions. CHAPTER SEVEN ASSESSMENT OF HYPOTHESES: QUANTITATIVE RESULTS llJmmdnctinn Results obtained were subjected to MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance) techniques using the SPSS statistical package to analyze unweighted means. The results of the quantitative questionnaire items will be presented in relation to each hypothesis. Then data will be presented which is concerned with (a) whether mere are influences on ratings that should be assessed and (b) whether raters’ responses were based on accurate perceptions of the candidates’ work history and other characteristics. Qualitative data (candidate descriptors, strengths, weaknesses and job choice rationales) will be discussed in a subsequent chapter. Wm Zilfimmflflymhesisme H1. Obese individuals will be less likely to be selected than normal-weight individuals. This hypothesis was measured by question 53, which asked respondents to indicate whether they would hire the candidate and, if a hiring choice were made, into what job they would place the candidate. The following discussion details the results of that question. According to the relationships hypothesized herein, the obese applicants (Candidates C and D) should show the highest rate of being indicated as a ”Would Not Hire” across the four conditions. 119 120 Table 9 outlines the hiring recommendations made by raters. The first number indicates the number of respondents selecting that option; the figure in percentages indicates the percentage of respondents within that condition who chose that option. As can be seen from the results therein, hypothesis one was not supported. The obese candidates (Candidates C and D) were not more likely to be refused a job. Rather, the candidate who garnered the highest proportion of refusals was the average-weight female (Candidate B). The proportion of respondents who refused to hire Candidate B was significantly higher than the proportion of respondents in any other category who made this choice. Comparing candidate B to candidate D, 2 = 2.33, significant at p < .05. Comparing candidate B to candidate A, z = 1.68, not significant at p < .05. 121 TABLE 9 HIRING RECOMMENDATIONS BY RATERS Avg.Weight Avg.Weight Obese Obese Male Female Male Female CANDID. A CANDID. B CANDID. C CANDID. D JOB CATEGORY: NO 8 18 6 6 HIRE (11.4%) (21.7%) (9.1%) (8.2%) HRB 18 15 17 28 ANAL. (25.7%) (18.1%) (25.8%) (38.4%) SALES 31 28 29 24 REP. (44.3%) (33.7%) (43.9%) (32.9%) MGMT. 13 22 14 15 TRAINEE (18.6%) (26.5%) (21.2%) (20.5%) TOTAL: 70 83 66 73 For the position of Human Resources Benefits Analyst, the test of proportions indicates that the proportion Of respondents viewing Candidate A and allocating him to this position and the proportion viewing Candidate C and making the same selection are not significantly different (2 = .135, not significant at p < .05). Results indicate that proportions of respondents viewing each candidate and assigning that candidate to the Human Resources Benefits Analyst position are not significantly different from one 122 another except when comparing candidate B to candidate D. Respondents were significantly more likely to assign candidate D to the job than were respondents viewing candidate B (2 = 2.9, significant at p < .05). For the position of Sales Representative, similarly, the respondents did not significantly differ across candidates in the proportions which they assigned to this position. These proportions, through marginally different from one another, are not statistically different from one another. Comparing candidate A to candidate C, 2 = .05, not significant at p < .05. Comparing candidate B to candidate D, 2 = .11, not significant at p < .05. Comparing candidate B to candidate D, 2 = 1.28, not significant at p < .05. For the Management Trainee position, the proportions of respondents allocating candidates into these positions did not significantly differ from one another across the conditions. Comparing candidate B to candidate A (the largest difference between proportions), z = 1.16, not significant at p < .05. Comparing candidate A to candidate D, z = .30, not significant at p < .05. Comparing candidate C to candidate D, 2 = .10, not significant at p < .05. TO summarize across the candidates: This hypothesis was not supported. Obese individuals were not more likely to be refused employment; rather, it was the average—weight female applicant who was most likely to be refused, whereas the obese 123 female candidate was significantly more likely to be placed in the least desirable job; no effect Of Obesity was seen upon the placement choices made regarding the "overweight” male stimulus. Very little variance in candidate placement occurred. The average-weight female candidate was more likely than the Obese female candidate to be denied employment. The Obese female candidate was more likely than the average-weight female candidate to be assigned to the least desirable job (Human Resources Benefits Analyst). NO differences were seen in the proportions Of hiring preferences allocated to the male candidates. Certainly no influence Of Obesity can be detected upon raters’ reactions to Candidate C as indicated by their hiring choices. The only possible influence of candidate Obesity upon rater hiring actions was a greater likelihood that the Obese female would be assigned to a less—desirable job than the average-weight female. 7 A i H2. Obese individuals will be less likely to be preferred as potential coworkers, supervisors or subordinates. This hypothesis was measured by assessing raters’ responses to the first sixteen items Of the questionnaire (see Figure 15, pages 89 and 90). Respondents were asked to rate the candidate by responding to a series Of items such as, "I would want to be this person’s coworker, " or "I think this person will be self-motivated. " Respondents were asked to indicate their levels Of agreement with each statement. Levels Of agreement were measured on a Likert scale, with values from one to seven (with one being "strongly 124 disagree," four being "neutral,” and seven representing "strongly agree.” As was indicated earlier, it was hypothesized that responses tO these questions would indicate raters’ perceptions Of the candidates’ likability and employment skills. It was expected that the obese female candidate (Candidate D) would show results which indicated lower levels Of agreement with statements such as ”I would want tO be this person’s coworker" or "I would want to work for this person. " This hypothesis was not supported. There were no significant differences in the mean ratings assigned to the candidates on any Of the sixteen items (see Table 10 for a complete printout Of all means and F-values). As can be seen in the results within that table, no candidate made a stronger impression on raters than any other. Indeed, in a number Of cases, e.g., questions 2, 4, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, the limited amount Of difference from the "neutral” value Of 4 would indicate that the candidate made little impression overall. Where reactions did stray from the neutral to the positive (since there were no trends toward disagreement with any of the statements), movement toward agreement was relatively slight, and Of the same magnitude across all experimental conditions. 1225 1FI\IBI.IZ 1() MANOVA RESULTS: QUESTIONS 1-16 288 cases accepted; 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 7 cases rejected because of lissing data; 4 non-enpty cells. Multivariate Tests of Significance Test Mane Value Approx. F Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F Pillais .12631 .74444 48.00 813.00 .900 Hotellinqs .13238 .73823 48.00 803.00 .906 Wilks .87872 .74130 48.00 800.87 .903 Variable .. PlSlQl Want To Be Co-worker FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 95.1 Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 4.686 1.174 70 4.406 4.966 RECCAND Cand. B 4.704 1.239 81 4.430 4.978 RECCAND Cand. C 4.469 1.038 64 4.209 4.728 RECCAND Cand. D 4.644 1.147 73 4.376 4.911 For entire salple 4.632 1.155 288 4.498 4.766 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable nEypoth. SS Error SS Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig3 of F PlSlQl 2.33428 380.65183 .77809 1.34032 .58053 .628 Variable .. PISIQZ Want To Work For Candidate FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 95 percent Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 3.971 1.191 70 3.687 4.256 RECCAND Cand. B 4.185 1.276 81 3.903 4.467 RECCAND Cand. C 3.750 1.272 64 3.432 4.068 RECCAND Cand. D 4.192 1.309 73 3.886 4.497 For entire salple 4.038 1.270 288 3.891 4.185 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P131QZ 9.09971 453.48015 3.03324 1.59676 1.89962 .130 Variable .. PISIQ3 Want To Be Supervisor FACTOR CODE ' Mean Std. Dev. N 95 percent Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 4.800 1.281 70 4.495 5.105 RECCAND Cand. B 4.815 1.266 81 4.535 5.095 RECCAND Cand. C 4.562 1.153 64 4.274 4.851 RECCAND Cand. D 4.932 1.368 73 4.612 5.251 For entire saaple 4.785 1.272 288 4.637 4.932 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P181Q3 4.82302 459.82976 1.60767 1.61912 .99293 .397 1213 TABLE 10 (Cont’d) Variable .. P18104 Person Would Make Good Boss FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 95 percent Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 4.043 1.185 70 3.760 4.325 RECCAND Cand. 8 4.321 1.192 81 4.057 4.585 RECCAND Cand. C 3.812 1.367 64 3.471 4.154 RECCAND Cand. D 4.205 1.364 73 3.887 4.524 For entire saaple 4.111 1.283 288 3.962 4.260 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F PlSlQ4 10.25089 462.19356 3.41696 1.62744 2.09959 .100 Variable .. P181QS Person Would Be Highly Productive FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 95 percent gnnfi. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.014 1.291 70 4.706 5.322 RECCAND Cand. 8 5.012 1.462 81 4.689 5.336 RECCAND Cand. C 4.781 1.397 64 4.432 5.130 RECCAND Cand. D 4.918 1.320 73 4.610 5.226 For entire saaple 4.937 1.368 288 4.779 5.096 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F PlleS 2.45728 534.41772 .81909 1.88175 .43528 .728 Variable .. Plle6 Good Spokesperson For Organization FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 95 percent Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 4.129 1.605 70 3.746 4.511 RECCAND Cand. 8 4.259 1.672 81 3.890 4.629 RECCAND Cand. C 4.078 1.567 64 3.687 4.469 RECCAND Cand. D 4.110 1.704 73 3.712 4.507 For entire salple 4.149 1.634 288 3.960 4.339 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error 58 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P18106 1.44879 765.13108 .48293 2.69412 .17925 .910 12?7 TABLE 10 (Cont’d) Variable .. P1810? Capable Of Working Independently FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 95 percent Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.300 1.172 70 5.021 5.579 RECCAND Cand. B 5.185 1.361 81 4.884 5.486 RECCAND Cand. C 5.172 1.340 64 4.837 5.507 RECCAND Cand. D 5.411 1.223 73 5.126 5.696 For entire salple 5.267 1.275 288 5.120 5.415 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P15107 2.71036 463.70283 .90345 1.63276 .55333 .646 Variable .. PISlQ8 Will Delonstrate Initiative FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 95 percent Cont, Intenval RECCAND Cand. A 5.271 1.141 70 4.999 5.544 RECCAND Cand. B 5.111 1.414 81 4.798 5.424 RECCAND Cand. C 5.047 1.385 64 4.701 5.393 RECCAND Cand. D 5.151 1.298 73 4.848 5.454 For entire saaple 5.146 1.312 288 4.994 5.298 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P18108 1.83030 492.04470 .61010 1.73255 .35214 .788 Variable .. Plle9 Will Be Self-Motivated FACTOR. CODE Mean Std. Dev. W 95 percent Cont, Internal RECCAND Cand. A 5.157 1.247 70 4.860 5.454 RECCAND Cand. B 5.160 1.383 81 4.855 5.466 RECCAND Cand. C 4.969 1.333 64 4.636 5.302 RECCAND Cand. D 5.151 1.287 73 4.850 5.451 For entire saaple 5.115 1.311 288 4.963 5.267 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error 58 Hypoth. MS Error MS F 819. of F P181Q9 1.75378 491.46497 58459 1.73051 .33781 .798 1228 TABLE 10 (Cont’d) Variable .. P181010 Will Be A Hard Worker FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 95npercent Cong, Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.043 1.245 70 4.746 5.340 RECCAND Cand. B 5.074 1.447 81 4.754 5.394 RECCAND Cand. C 4.828 1.279 64 4.509 5.148 RECCAND Cand. D 5.082 1.310 73 4.777 5.388 For entire saaple 5.014 1.325 288 4.860 5.168 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS Hypoth. MS Error MS F 81g. of F P151010 2.90124 501.04321 .96708 1.76424 .54816 .650 Variable .. P181011 Strong Colaunication Skills IIFACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 957percent Confin_Interynl RECCAND Cand. A 4.271 1.605 70 3.889 4.654 RECCAND Cand. B 4.543 1.621 81 4.185 4.902 RECCAND Cand. C 4.406 1.678 64 3.987 4.825 RECCAND Cand. D 4.452 1.667 73 4.063 4.841 For entire salple 4.424 1.636 288 4.234 4.613 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P151011 2.85813 765.46131 .95271 2.69529 .35347 .787 Variable .. P181012 Strong Leadership Skills FACTOR, CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 95 percent Conf. Interyel RECCAND Cand. A 4.200 1.058 70 3.948 4.452 RECCAND Cand. B 4.296 1.239 81 4.022 4.570 RECCAND Cand. C 3.922 1.251 64 3.609 4.234 RECCAND Cand. D 4.205 1.354 73 3.890 4.521 For entire saaple 4.167 1.233 288 4.024 4.310 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P151012 5.38393 430.61607 1.79464 1.51625 1.18360 .316 129 TABLE 10 (Cont’d) Variable .. P181013 Perforl Well On Job FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 95 percent Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 4.886 1.123 70 4.618 5.154 RECCAND Cand. B 4.889 1.235 81 4.616 5.162 RECCAND Cand. C 4.672 1.085 64 4.401 4.943 RECCAND Cand. D 5.055 1.189 73 4.777 5.332 For entire salple 4.882 1.166 288 4.747 5.017 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P131013 5.01020 384.97591 1.67007 1.35555 1.23202 .298 Variable .. P181014 Effective Decision Maker FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 95 percent Conf. Intennal RECCAND Cand. A 4.529 1.032 70 4.283 4.775 RECCAND Cand. 8 4.593 1.202 81 4.327 4.858 RECCAND Cand. C 4.125 1.062 64 3.860 4.390 RECCAND Cand. D 4.507 1.282 73 4.208 4.806 For entire salple 4.451 1.162 288 4.317 4.586 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error MS F 819. of F P181014 9.07446 378.24499 3.02482 1.33185 2.27114 .080 Variable .. P181015 Strong Managerial Skills FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 95 percent Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 4.314 1.246 70 4.017 4.611 RECCAND Cand. B 4.457 1.245 81 4.181 4.732 RECCAND Cand. C 4.125 1.291 64 3.803 4.447 RECCAND Cand. D 4.370 1.429 73 4.036 4.703 For entire saaple 4.326 1.303 288 4.175 4.478 Univariate F-test with (3,284) O. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P181015 4.12127 483.19818 1.37376 1.70140 .80743 .491 Variable .. P181016 Strong Interpersonal Skills ACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M, 954percent Confl_lnterynl RECCAND Cand. A 4.343 1.413 70 4.006 4.680 RECCAND Cand. B 4.469 1.246 81 4.194 4.745 RECCAND Cand. C 4.125 1.386 64 3.779 4.471 RECCAND Cand. D 4.397 1.341 73 4.084 4.710 For entire saaple 4.344 1.342 288 4.188 4.499 Univariate F-test with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. M8 Error MS F Sig. of F P131016 4.54503 512.42372 1.51501 1.80431 .83966 .473 130 Examination of the intercorrelations among these items indicates relatively high levels Of intercorrelation (e. g. , r’s of .40 and above) for many Of the responses (see Appendix A for Summary of Intercorrelations Among Measures of Coworker Desirability). These levels Of intercorrelation indicate that these items may jointly tap an index of the candidate’s general desirability as a co-worker or employee. Accordingly, responses to these questions were summed for items 1-16 and ANOVA was used to assess the differences in the sums achieved across candidates. The goal was to produce a measure Of candidate desirability that would be more sensitive to relatively small differences in evaluation. However, the mean values generated for each candidate across all sixteen items were also not significantly different from each other at p < .05. The mean sums were as follows: TABLE 11 COMPARISON OF SUMMED MEAN VALUES ACROSS ITEMS 1-16 _CANDIDAIEMEAN $1121 Candidate A: 73.96 15.79 Candidate B: 75.08 17.11 Candidate C: 70.24 16.01 Candidate D: 74.72 16.83. Paired Comparisons: A vs. C, (If 1,136; F = 1.89, p < .17 Overall, then, this hypothesis was not supported. Mean ratings across items 1 - 16 of the questionnaire indicate that there were no significant differences across conditions in raters’ assessments of the candidates’ desirability as coworkers, subordinates, or superiors. Summing across these items also yielded no significant differences across candidates. 131 ILJlQ2__IASSfaEHEE2nIJQILIIIQZQIDEEEELLEEEIZE H3. If subjects are asked to rate prospects for individuals’ likelihood of success in an employment setting, obese individuals will be rated as having lower likelihood of successful performance. In addition to indicating their hiring preferences, respondents were also candidate, asked to respond to an item (formatted on a 7-pOint Likert scale, 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree), measuring level of agreement with the statement: "I think this person will be very successful in this position.“ As can be seen below in Table 12, Candidate A (the average-weight male) received a significantly higher Of agreement with this statement than did the other candidates. Q. 54: "I think this person will be very successful in this position." (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4 = Neutral, 7 = Strongly Agree) Successful In Position? BY RECCAIID Recoded Candidate Id -TOTAL POPULATION: MEAN: 5.08 (N= 279) ML. A E .C. D MEANS: 5.46 5.00 4.87 5.00 I: (67) (74) (67) (71) Sun of Mean Sig Source of Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 13.817 3 4.606 2.604 .052 RECCAND 13.817 3 4.606 2.604 .052 Explained 13.817 3 4.606 2.604 .052 Residual 486.448 275 1.769 Total 500.265 278 1.800 -295 cases were processed. 16 cases (5.4 pct) were lissing. IuIber_et_Ia1id_observations_lli§tri§el.= ., 279.00 132 The hypothesized relationship did not emerge. The means of the obese candidates were not significantly different from that Of the average-weight female candidate. However, respondents viewing the average-weight male candidate demonstrated significantly higher levels of agreement with the statement, ”I think this person will be very successful in this position. " llLAssessmentnLHmthesisEnur H4. If subjects have the opportunity to assign candidates to positions, Obese individuals are less likely to be assigned to positions which lead to supervisory responsibilities. This hypothesis was measured by responses to the question which asked respondents to indicate whether they would hire the candidate and into which job (if any) they would recommend placement. The jobs of management trainee and sales representative were both described as having Opportunities for promotion into management. It was assumed that support for this hypothesis would be indicated by larger proportions of the average- weight candidates being assigned into those job categories. In assessing the assignment Of candidates to jobs, it was found that this hypothesis was partially supported. While the average-weight candidates were not more likely to be assigned to supervisory positions, the obese fennle candidate was more likely to be assigned to the Human Resources Benefits Analyst position, which did not offer significant managerial or supervisory opportunities. For the sales representative position, 133 which did indicate limited Opportunity tO accede to supervisory responsibilities: comparing average-weight to overweight candidates, the proportions selected are identical. For the management trainee position, which Offered significant opportunities to move into supervisory responsibility: comparing average-weight to overweight candidates, the proportions selected are not significantly different from each other (2 = .42, not significant at p < .05). Combining male and female stimuli within each weight category, the Obese candidates were not more likely to be assigned to the non- supervisory job category of Human Resources Benefits Analyst (2 = .63, not significant at p < .05). However, when separating results by gender of stimulus, the Obese female stimulus was found to be significantly more likely to be placed in the least desirable job category (which had limited supervisory or managerial potential) (comparing across the female candidates, B vs. D, z = 2.85, significant at p < .05). NO similar effect was seen for the Obese male stimulus. He was in fact assigned to job categories in virtually identical proportions as the average-weight male stimulus. Table 13 summarizes the job placement preferences across candidates. 134 TABLE 13 HIRING RECOMMENDATIONS BY RATERS Avg.Welgnt Mnle Avg.WeIgnt Ieaale Obese Male Obese Fenale CANDID. A CANDID. B CANDID. C CANDID. D JOB CATEGORY: N0 8 18 6 6 HIRE (11.4%) (21.7%) (9.1%) (8.2%) _ ERB 18 15 17 28 ANAL; (25.7%) .118.131 (25.8%) (38.481 SALES 31 28 29 24 REP. (44.3%) 133.78) 4143.98) (32.9%) MGMT. 13 22 14 15 TRAINEE (18.6%) (26.5%) (21.2%) (20.5%) TOTAL: 70 83 66 73 :Z 2 :5 i I II I . 13. H5. If subjects are asked to recommend a starting salary for a prospective employee, obese individuals will receive lower initial salary recommendations. This hypothesis was not supported. Differences in salary were found to be due to the position assigned rather than to the candidate reviewed. The position of Human Resources Benefits analyst was assigned a significantly lower mean salary than that assigned to the Sales Representative, which in turn was lower than the salary assigned to the Management Trainee position. The mean salary offered to Management Trainees was $29,830.29; for Sales Representative it was $25,444.84; and for Human Resources Benefits Analyst it was $22,274.06. See Table 14 for specific information on salary recommendations by candidate and fly position. 1235 'ITAI313IE 144 CANDIDATE SALARY BY CONDITION 250 cases accepted; 38 cases rejected because of out-of—range factor values. 7 cases rejected because of lissing data; 12 non-empty cells. 95 percent Conf. Interval 21461.425 20234.996 19623.196 22052.620 23689.146 23640.820 24145.358 24218.056 28667.491 28135.342 27427.980 28923.978 25048.437 23483.019 24298.337 22501.804 24537.094 26410.854 27037.751 27509.815 26906.944 31794.047 30682.840 30648.943 32361.736 26133.611 Est. Mean Raw Resid. Std. Resid. 22472.22222 .00000 22266.66667 .00000 21062.50000 .00000 23294.85714 .00000 .00000 .00000 Variable .. CANDSAL Starting Salary Offered FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N P183053 Eulan Resources Benefits Analyst RECCAND Cand. A 22472.222 2032.618 18 RECCAND Cand. B 22266.667 3668.722 15 RECCAND Cand. C 21062.500 2701.080 16 RECCAND Cand. D 23294.85? 3203.628 28 P183053 Sales Representative RECCAND Cand. A 25050.000 3644.434 30 RECCAND Cand. B 25339.286 4380.203 28 RECCAND Cand. C 25827.586 4422.499 29 RECCAND Cand. D 25562.500 3183.901 24 P183053 Manaqenent Trainee RECCAND Cand. A 30230.769 2586.949 13 RECCAND Cand. B 29409.091 2872.846 22 RECCAND Cand. C 29038.462 2665.064 13 RECCAND Cand. D 30642.85? 2977.018 14 For entire saaple 25591.024 4355.876 250 Tests of Significance for CANDSAL using UNIQUE suns of squares Source of Variation 88 DF MS F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 2783281036 238 11694458 P153053 1862871850 2 931435925 79.65 .000 RECCAND 42784530.32 3 14261510 1.22 .303 P153053 EN RECCAND 49836528.21 6 8306088.0 .71 .642 Adjusted and Estiwated Means Variable .. CAMDSAL Starting Salary Offered Factor Code Obs. Mean Adj. Mean P183053 Euaan Resources Benefits Analyst RECCAND Cand. A 22472.22222 22472.22222 RECCAND Cand. B 22266.66667 22266.66667 RECCAND Cand. C 21062.50000 21062.50000 RECCAND Cand. D 23294.85714 23294.85714 P153053 RECCAND RECCAND RECCAND RECCAND P153053 RECCAND 136 TABLE 14 (Cont’d) Sales Representative Cand. A Cand. B Cand. C Cand. D Manage-ent Trainee Cand. A Cand. B Cand. C Cand. D 25050.00000 25339.28571 25827.58621 25562.50000 30230.76923 29409.09091 29038.46154 30642.85714 25050.00000 25339.28571 25827.58621 25562.50000 30230.76923 29409.09091 29038.46154 30642.85714 25050.00000 .00000 25339.28571 . 25827.58621 . 25562.50000 . 30230.76923 29409.09091 . 29038.46154 . 30642.85714 Conbined Adjusted Means for P183053 Variable . . CAMDSAL P183053 Eulan Res. Sales Rep. UNWGT. 22274.06151 UNWGT. 25444.84298 Mglt. Trainee UMWGT. 29830.29471 Coabined Adjusted Means for RECCAND Variable . . CAMDSAL UNWGT. 25917.66382 UNMGT. 25309.51592 UNMGT. 26500.07143 A . B UNMGT. 25671.68110 C D In assessing covariates of salary, it was discovered that rater gender had a margirmlly significant influence on salary offered, with males Offering higher salaries than females (female salary mean $21,745.71, male salary mean $23,822.42, F = 3.448, p < .064). However, if one controls for the zero—value salaries in the ”no hire" condition, then this difference disappears. 225! [II l‘S' H6. Obesity of the candidate should have less impact upon the evaluation of male candidates than upon the evaluation of female candidates. In other words, discriminatory findings (if any) should be more pronounced for female obese applicants than for males. 137 This hypothesis received limited support. As was indicated above, no difference in placement choices was evident in comparing the male stimuli. The male stimuli were placed into the different job categories in nearly identical proportions. The obese male candidate was not more likely to be placed into a less-desirable job but the Obese female stimulus was. In an examination of the descriptors Of the candidates (see subsequent chapter, page onward, for a detailed description), it was found that the obese male stimulus received no negative comments about his appearance in the subjects’ listings of adjective descriptors; in fact, there were two positive comments about his appearance. There were two negative and no positive descriptors of the obese female stimulus’ appearance in the same category. 232.1113 E'Dl'l In addition to assessing the ratings of the candidates directly, additional data was gatheredmmauemptmdetaminewhematherearemfluencesonmdngsthatshould beassessedandcontrolledfor. Additionaldatawasalsogatheredtodeterminewhether mtem’responseswembasedmaccmampercepuonsofmemndidates’wmkarymd characteristics. The following sections describe those possible influences. 131 II . l . C] I Questions 56 through 60 were included as checks on the accuracy of raters’ recollection of facts on the candidate. Responses to these questions may indicate whether respondents understood information or in what form they understood it. 138 Question 56 asked for an indication Of whether the candidate was male or female. 100% of the respondents who viewed candidates A and C indicated the candidate was male; 100% of the respondents who viewed candidates B and D indicated the candidate was female. These results indicate accurate perceptions and recollection by subjects. Question 57 asked respondents to indicate the candidate’s ethnic background. They were provided the response Options of "This candidate was: Black, White, (or) Hispanic. " All respondents indicated that the candidates were white, which was the case. Again, it is clear that the stimulus was unambiguous for the subjects in this regard. Question 58 asked respondents to indicate their assessment of the candidate’s body type; specifically, raters were asked to indicate whether the candidate was "thin” (value Of 1), ”average" (value of 2), (or) "overweight" (value of 3). Pretest results and the actors’ actual height-weight status would lead to the expectation that candidates A and B (the actors in their unaltered images) would receive mean ratings not significantly different from 2.0 (”average”); candidates C and D (the actors in their expanded images) would be expected to generate mean ratings not significantly different from 3 .0 ("overweight"). Results for the candidates were as follows (see Table 15): 139 TABLE 15 RATINGS OF CANDIDATE WEIGHT EMELA w ___CA_NQ._C_ _CAND._I2 Avg. Male Avg. Female Obese Male Obese Female MEAN: 1.92 2.27 2.30 2.93 STD.DEV. .37 .44 .49 .25 N0. of 8’s 7O 83 67 72 A comparison of the means reveals that the mean value for Candidate B is significantly higher than that for Candidate A (z = 5.18, significant at p < .05) and that the mean value for Candidate D is significantly higher than that of Candidate C (2 = - 9.48, significant at p < .05). However, the value for candidate C is not significantly different from that of candidate B (2 = .43, non-significant at p < .05). What this means is that although the candidates were both of ”normal” weight in their rmaltered states (i.e. , Candidates A and B), the female candidate was perceived as being significantly heavier. When comparing these obtained values to a presumed population mean of 2.0 ("average”), results indicate that whereas the mean for candidate A is significantly lower than the value of 2.0 (2 = 1.95, significant at p < .05), the mean for candidate B is significantly 23111191 than the value of 2.0 (z = 5.44, significant at p < .05). Even though these two individuals were approximately comparable in weight, she was perceived as being significantly heavier than he was. 140 In comparing candidate C to candidate D, the mean value for candidate D (the Obese female stimulus) is significantly greater than that of candidate C (the obese male stimulus), even though each individual’s image was increased by exactly the same amount. In comparing these values (at p < .05) to a presumed population mean Of 3.0 ("overweight"), both values are significantly different from this value (for the male stimulus, z = -11.70; for the female stimulus, z = 2.3). If a more stringent confidence interval is adopted (i.e. , p < .01), then there is no longer a significant difference between the mean value obtained by candidate D and the value of 3 .0. In essence, the weight of the male stimulus is perceived as slightly above ”average, " while the female is balanced on the edge of the category ”overweight. " The mean value for candidate C was not significantly different from the mean for candidate B (2 = .43, not significant at p < .05). That is, the "obese" male candidate received a rating equivalent to that received by the average-weight female candidate. Table 16 presents the ratings of candidates by condition. It is interesting to note that neither of the female stimuli are rated as "thin" by any rater; the two average-weight stimuli (candidates A and B) are about as likely as candidate C (the "Obese" male stimulus) to be rated as average in weight; of the two overweight stimuli, the female was rated as overweight much more frequently. 141 TABLE 16 FREQUENCY OF ASSESSMENTS OF CANDIDATE WEIGHT (Q. 53) First Line: Numerical Count Third Line: Column Percentage Second Line: Row Percentage Fourth Line: Percent of Total CANDIDATES: A B C D TOTAL CANDIDATE 8 1 9 WEIGHT: THIN 89 % 11 % 100% 1 l % 2 % 3% 0.3% CANDIDATE 6O 6O 45 5 170 WEIGHT: 35 % 35 % 27 % 3 % 100% AVERAGE: 86% 73 % 70% 7% 21% 21% 16% 2% CANDIDATE 2 22 18 67 109 WEIGHT: 2% 20% 17% 62% 100% OVERWEIGHT: 3% 27% 28% 93% 0.7% 8% 6% 23% COLUMN TOTAL 70 82 64 72 288 100% 100% 100% 100% Question 59 asked respondents to indicate whether the candidate had ”an associate’s degree,” "a bachelor’s degree," or "a master’s degree." This question might have been somewhat confusing to respondents in that the candidate was described as being about to complete a Master’s degree in business administration. Depending on whether one viewed the question as pertaining to the degree already Obtained, or to the degree that was abouttobeobtained,eitherresponsecouldbedeemedaccmate. Overall,rater perceptions wereaccurateinthatnooneindicatedthatthecandidatehadanassociate’s degree. The proportions across candidates indicating the level Of education perceived is 142 listed as follows in Table 17. (Numbers indicate number of respondents; figures in parentheses refer to percent of total in each category.) TABLE 17 RESPONDENTS’ ASSESSMENT OF CANDIDATE EDUCATION WWW w Bachelor’s 26 25 23 38 Degree (38%) (32%) (34%) (56%) Master’s 43 53 44 30 Degree (62%) (68%) (66%) (44%) TOTAL SUBJECTS 69 78 67 68 Comparing across candidates using the test of proportions, Candidate D had a significantly higher percentage Of respondents who indicated that she had a Bachelor’s degree than did any other candidate. Comparing candidate A to candidate D (the smallest difference that can be assessed), 2 = -2.14, significant at p < .05. Of course, then, candidate D was significantly less likely to be indicated as possessing a Master’s degree. Comparing candidate D to Candidate A, z = 2.21, significant at p < .05. Question 60 asked respondents to indicate whether the candidate had ”0-3 years’ experience," '4—6 years’ experience," and '7-9 years’ experience.” It was expected that most respondents would indicate that the candidate had '46 years’ experience" since 143 the candidate had been out of school for seven years and had taken a year Off for travel. However, if one merely scanned the resume and subtracted year of graduation from the current date, the number of years Of experience would equal seven. Subjects’ categorizations of candidate education are provided in Table 18: TABLE 18 RESPONDENTS’ ASSESSMENT OF CANDIDATE EXPERIENCE WWWW 0—3 YEARS’ 4 14 1 5 EXPERIENCE (6%) (17%) (2%) (7%) 4—6 YEARS’ 46 54 57 52 EXPERIENCE (66%) (66%) (84%) (75%) 79 YEARS’ 20 14 10 12 EXPERIENCE (29%) (17%) (15%) (17%) TOTAL RESPONSES 7O 82 68 69 It is readily apparent that most respondents were aware of the general length of experience of the candidate. The respondents to candidate B, however, were more likely than those viewing candidates A or C to report only 0—3 years of work experience (2 = 2.17, significant at p < .05). The difference in the proportion reporting this for candidatesBandDisnotsignificantatp < .05 (z = 1.82). Respondents assessing candidate C were significantly more likely to report that he had 4-6 years’ experience than were respondents to candidate A or candidate B (2 = 2.14, 144 significant at p < .05). The proportion of respondents to candidates D and C who reported 4—6 years’ work experience were not significantly different (2 = 1.22, not significant at p < .05). Finally, the proportions of respondents who reported 7 -9 years’ work experience did not differ across the candidates. Comparing candidate A to candidate C (the largest possible difference), 2 = 1.93, not significant at p < .05. In question 61, raters were asked to indicate where they sat in relation to the video monitor. They were asked to indicate how many ”people or chairs” were between them and the TV monitor. They had ten response choices, ranging from ”0" to '9 or more.” These categories were then recoded as "0—3," '4—6" and '7-9+ " for purposes of analysis. These categories were then used as predictors for the items Of candidate salary (question 55), candidate race, gender, education and experience to determine if location might have had an effect on raters’ perceptions. As was seen in Table 2, pages 105-109, there was no influence of location on raters’ assessments. ZIE'HC' 'lE' It was thought that there might be individual factors (such as raters’ demographic characteristics) which might be related to the ratings assessed. Accordingly, demographic variables such as rater gender, major, and obesity status (Obese vs.‘ non—Obese) were evaluated as covariates of subjects’ ratings. The results Of those tests appear in Table 19, which follows. 145 Rater gender was assessed to determine its impact on ratings given; no significant differences in ratings patterns were detected for males vs. females in the sample. Rater Obesity was assessed as a covariate of ratings assigned; ratings were summed across items 1- 16 of the questionnaire. As Table 24 indicates, there was a significant influence of rater obesity status on ratings, with Obese raters being harsher than the non—obese (F = 5.50, p < .02). However, raters’ Obesity was not related to starting salary Offered. Subjects’ major was assessed as a covariate of ratings and was found to have no effect on candidate ratings. 14M5 'I7A131313 19) ASSESSMENT OF DEMOGRAPHIC COVARIATES I. ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATE SALARY WITH SEX AS COVARIATE CAEDSAL Starting Salary Offered BY RECCAND Recoded Candidate Id -TOTAL POPULATION: MEAN: $22564.90 (N= 289) 1 2 3 4 (CAND. A) (CAND. B) (CAND. C) (CAND. D) MEAN: 22449.27 20875.00 23093.75 24177.16 N: ( 69) ( 84) ( 64) ( 72) CANDSAL Starting Salary Offered by RECCAND Recoded Candidate Id with SEX Respondent's Sex Sun of Mean Sig Source of Variation Squares DF Square F of F Covariates 297711365 1 297711364.586 3.457 .064 SEX 297711365 1 297711364.586 3.457 .064 Main Effects 328217625 3 109405875.102 1.271 .285 RECCAND 328217625 3 109405875.102 1.271 .285 Explained 625928990 4 156482247.473 1.817 .126 Residual 24455401288 284 86110567.916 Total 25081330278 288 87087952.354 -295 cases were processed. 6 cases (2.0 pct) were aissing. II. ANALYSIS OF SUMMED VALUES FOR Questions 1-16 Total BY RECCAND Recoded Candidate Id -TOTAL POPULATION: MEAN: 73.74 (N= 293) 1 2 3 4 (CAND. A) (CAMD.B) (CAMD.C) (CAMD.D) MEAN: 73.96 75.08 70.67 74.78 I: ( 70) ( 84) ( 66) ( 73) ANOVA: Questions 1-16 Total by Recoded Candidate Id with SEX Respondent’s Sex Sun of Mean Sig Source of Variation Squares DF Square F of F OCovariates 278.144 1 278.144 1.025 .312 SEX 278.144 1 278.144 1.025 .312 0Main Effects 982.696 3 327.565 1.207 .307 RECCAND 982.696 3 327.565 1.207 .307 OExplained 1260.839 4 315.210 1.162 .328 OResidual 78128.963 288 271.281 OTotal 79389.802 292 271.883 -295 cases were processed; 2 cases (.7 pct) were lissing 147 TABLE 19 (Cont’d) III. ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATE SALARY WITH OBESITY STATUS AS COVARIATE CANDSAL Starting Salary Offered BY RECCAND Recoded Candidate Id -TOTAL POPULATION: MEAN: 22461.76 (N= 281) 1 2 3 4 (CAND.A) (CAND.B) (CAND.C) (CAND.D) MEAN: 22174.24 20693.75 23156.25 24095.15 1: ( 66) ( 30) ( 64) ( 71) CANDSAL Starting Salary Offered by RECCAND Recoded Candidate Id with OBSTAT Respondent’s Obesity Status Sun of Mean Sig Source of Variation Squares DF Square F of F Covariates 66927102 1 66927102.061 .767 .382 OBSTAT 66927102 1 66927102.061 .767 .382 Main Effects 543845861 3 181281953.649 2.078 .103 RECCAND 543845861 3 181281953.649 2.078 .103 Explained 610772963 4 152693240.752 1.750 .139 Residual 24078613777 276 87241354.266 Total 24689386740 280 88176381.216 -295 cases were processed. 14 cases (4.7 pct) were aissing. cumsu. Starting Salary Offered BY RECCAND Recoded Candidate Id -TOTAL POPULATION: MEAN: 22551.52 (N= 289) 1 2 3 4 (CAND.A) (CAND.D) (CAND. C) (CAND.D) MEAN: 22449.27 20875.00 23046.15 24193.75 u= ( 69) ( 84) ( 65) ( 71) CAMDSAL Starting Salary Offered by RECCAND Recoded Candidate Id with MAJOR Respondent’s Acadeaic Background Sun of Mean Sig Source of Variation Squares DF Square F of F Covariates 69835 1 69835.107 .001 .977 MAJOR 69835 1 69835.107 .001 .977 Main Effects 468476443 3 156158814.409 1.801 .147 RECCAND 468476443 3 156158814.409 1.801 .147 Explained 468546278 4 117136569.584 1.351 .251 Residual 24619142256 284 86687120.619 Total 25087688534 288 87110029.632 -295 cases were processed. 6 cases (2.0 pct) were aissing. 1443 TABLE 19 (Cont’d) Iv. ANALYSIS OF SECTION 2 TOTALS wITII OBESITY STATUS AS COVARIATE PISITOT Questions 1-16 Total BY Recoded Candidate Id -mmtmmunw:uuz7im m=mn 1 2 3 4 (CAND.A) (CAND.D) (CAND.C) (CAND.D) MEAN: 73.82 74.77 70.65 74.57 N= ( 67) ( 80) ( 65) ( 72) P181101 drastions 1-16 Total by RECCAND Recoded Candidate Id with OBSTAT Respondent’ s Obesity Status Sun of Mean Sig Source of Variation Squares DF Square F of F Covariates 1487.096 1 1487.096 5.496 .020 OBSTAT 1487.096 1 1487.096 5.496 .020 Main Effects 683.341 3 227.780 .842 .472 RECCAND 683.341 3 227.780 .842 .472 Explained 2170.438 4 542.609 2.005 .094 Residual 75489.770 279 270.573 Total 77660.208 283 274.418 -295 cases were processed. 11 cases (3.7 pct) were aissing. ANALYSIS OF SUMMED VALUES, 0. 1-16 WITH MAJOR AS COVARIATE P151TOT Questions 1-16 Total BY RECCAND Recoded Candidate Id -TOTAL POPULATION: MEAN: 73.69 (N= 293) 1 2 3 4 (CAND.A) (CAND.D) (CAND.C) (CAND.D) MEAN: 73.96 75.08 70.03 75.22 N= ( 70) ( 84) ( 67) ( 72) PlSl‘lUT gestionsl-16T0ta1by 280cm RecodadCaniidateId MithMAJCR W’Smicm - Sun of Mean Sig Source of Variation Squares DF Square F of F 0Covariates 542.438 1 542.438 2.019 .156 MAJOR 542.438 1 542.438 2.019 .156 OMain Effects 1148.052 3 382.684 1.424 .236 RECCAND 1148.052 3 382.684 1.424 .236 OExplained 1690.490 4 422.622 1.573 .182 OResidual 77375.865 288 268.666 OTotal 79066.355 292 270.775 ~295 cases were processed. 2 cases (.7 pct) were lissing. In addition to the measures of rater demographic characteristics which were compared with the ratings assigned, raters were also asked to provide self—descriptors in response to a series of semantic differential items. These items (a set of 15 semantic differential response scales) were drawn from the pool of response items used to assess respondents’ descriptions of the candidates and were included in an effort to identify the extent to which rater assessments of the candidates paralleled their self-assessments. These items were compared across conditions to determine if there were significant differences in self-descriptors across conditions. The set of means and variances across candidates for each item is provided in Table 20, as are the F—tests of significance. As can be seen in Table 20, there were relatively few significant differences across conditions. On item 24 (”Unintelligent/Intelligent"), the respondents viewing Candidate D had a mean intelligence rating higher than the mean level asserted by respondents to Candidates B (z = 3.12, significant at p < .05); the mean value for Candidate D was not significantly different for those indicated for conditions A or C. On item 25 ("Feminine/Masculine”), there is a significant difference because the sample that had the highest proportion of female respondents (condition B) also gave higher self-reported ratings of perceived femininity. 150 Within item 28 (”Incapable/Capable"), the most heavily female-dominated sample (those viewing candidate B) also gave lower self-ratings on this scale. An assessment Of the intercorrelations among the responses to demographic questions 17-31 (Appendix B) indicates low to moderate intercorrelation among these measures, indicating that they do tap different domains. An assessment of the intercorrelations between these responses and the assessment of the candidates on the same scale (items 21-52 regarding the candidate) also indicate low correlations between self-ratings and candidate ratings (see Appendix C for this intercorrelation matrix). These results do not indicate that the subjects’ reactions to the candidates were influenced by any perceived similarity between themselves and the stimulus person. 1551 7fl\1311E312() IIIESH?()INESERS lf() ItAYIYEIlEF’ESENNIAEDTIIKZ I)II?FH3I{IEDFIHUAJS IITEIMES 294 cases accepted; 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 1 case rejected because of aissing data; 4 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. Variable .. P282017 Respondent Is Weak/Strong FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 95 percent Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.500 .676 70 5.339 5.661 RECCAND Cand. B 5.470 .915 83 5.270 5.670 RECCAND Cand. C 5.544 .800 68 5.351 5.738 RECCAND Cand. D 5.671 .783 73 5.489 5.854 For entire saaple 5.544 .803 294 5.452 5.636 Univariate F-tests with (3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P252017 1.77324 187.15193 .59108 .64535 .91590 .434 Variable .. P282018 Respondent Is Energetic/Sluggish FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. I 95 percent Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.771 .904 70 5.556 5.987 RECCAND Cand. B 5.771 .860 83 5.583 5.959 RECCAND Cand. C 5.632 .809 68 5.437 5.828 RECCAND Cand. D 5.959 .889 73 5.752 6.166 For entire salple 5.786 .869 294 5.686 5.886 Univariate F-tests with (3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error ss Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P252018 3.82100 217.67900 1.27367 .75062 1.69683 .168 Variable .. P282019 Respondent Is Flexible/Rigid FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 95 percent Cont. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.600 .939 70 5.376 5.824 RECCAND Cand. B 5.614 .986 83 5.399 5.830 RECCAND Cand. C 5.574 .997 68 5.332 5.815 RECCAND Cand. D 5.753 .969 73 5.527 5.979 For entire salple 5.636 .971 294 5.525 5.747 Univariate F-tests with (3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P252019 1.40118 274.65665 .46706 .94709 .49315 .687 1192 TABLE 20 (Cont’d) Variable . . P282020 Respondent Is Motivated/Unlotivated FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 95 percent Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.943 .778 70 5.757 6.128 RECCAND Cand. B 5.940 .860 83 5.752 6.128 RECCAND Cand. C 6.000 .846 68 5.795 6.205 RECCAND Cand. D 6.137 .871 73 5.934 6.340 For entire saaple 6.003 .841 294 5.907 6.100 Univariate F-tests with (3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P252020 1.89624 205.10036 .63208 .70724 .89372 .445 Variable . . P282021 Respondent Is Passive /Active FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. 14 95 percent Conf . Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.229 1.299 70 4.919 5.538 RECCAND Cand. 8 5.482 1.052 83 5.252 5.712 RECCAND Cand. C 5.647 1.076 68 5.387 5.907 RECCAND Cand. D 5.562 1.269 73 5.266 5.858 For entire salple 5.480 1.179 294 5.344 5.615 Univariate F-tests with ( 3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error 118 F Sig. of F P252021 6.80979 400.56776 2.26993 1.38127 1.64337 .179 Variable . . P282022 Respondent Is Unsuccessful /8uccessfu1 FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. 14 95 percent Cont . Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.671 .928 70 5.450 5.893 RECCAND Cand. B 5.639 .835 83 5.456 5.821 RECCAND Cand. C 5.706 .899 68 5.488 5.923 RECCAND Cand. D 5.753 .813 73 5.564 5.943 For entire saaple 5.690 .864 294 5.591 5.790 Univariate F-tests with (3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P252022 .55456 218.27877 .18485 .75269 .24559 .864 Variable 1193 TABLE 20 (Cont’d) --------------------------------------------- Variable P282023 Respondent Is Extroverted/ Introverted FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 95 percent Conf . Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.400 1.013 70 5.158 5.642 RECCAND Cand. B 5.181 .939 83 4.976 5.386 RECCAND Cand. C 5.147 .919 68 4.925 5.369 RECCAND Cand. D 5.192 .938 73 4.973 5.411 For entire salple 5.228 .952 294 5.119 5.337 Univariate F-tests with (3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P282023 2.79766 262.93364 .93255 .90667 1.02855 .380 Variable . . P282024 Respondent Is Unintelligent/Intelligent FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. 14 95 percent Conf . Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.914 .794 70 5.725 6.104 RECCARD Cand. 8 5.627 .760 83 5.460 5.793 RECCAND Cand. C 5.750 .904 68 5.531 5.969 RECCAND Cand. D 5.986 .677 73 5.828 6.144 For entire sanple 5.813 .794 294 5.722 5.904 Univariate F-tests with (3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. SS Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error Ms F Sig. of F P282024 6.06718 178.64370 2.02239 .61601 3.28304 .021 Variable . . P282025 Respondent Is Felinine/Masculine FACTOR (DOE Mean Std. Dev. I 95 percent Conf . Interval RECCAND Cand. A 3.786 2.166 70 3.269 4.302 RECCAID Cand. 8 3.277 1.850 83 2.873 3.681 RECCAND Cand. C 4.029 1.977 68 3.551 4.508 RECCAID Cand. D 4.082 2.165 73 3.577 4.587 For entire salple 3.772 2.054 294 3.536 4.008 Univariate F-tests with (3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P232025 31.87105 1203.86025 10.62368 4.15124 2.55916 .055 1594 TABLE 20 (Cont’d) Variable .. P282026 Respondent Is Decisive/Indecisive FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 95 percent Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.314 .925 70 5.094 5.535 RECCAND Cand. 8 5.265 .925 83 5.063 5.467 RECCAND Cand. C 5.603 .900 68 5.385 5.821 RECCAND Cand. D 5.507 .988 73 5.276 5.737 For entire salple 5.415 .941 294 5.307 5.523 Univariate F-tests with (3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P282026 5.59377 253.78038 1.86459 .87510 2.13071 .096 Variable .. P282027 Respondent Is Illature/Mature FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. l 95 percent Cont. Interval RECCAMD Cand. A 5.829 .851 70 5.626 6.031 RECCAID Cand. 8 5.699 1.112 83 5.456 5.942 RECCAND Cand. C 5.985 .819 68 5.787 6.184 RECCAND Cand. D 5.932 .991 73 5.700 6.163 For entire salple 5.854 .961 294 5.743 5.964 Univariate F-tests with (3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. M8 Error MS F Sig. of F P282027 3.65532 267.0555? 1.21844 .92088 1.32312 .267 Variable . . P282028 Respondent Is Incapable/Capable FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. l 95 percent Conf . Interval RECCAID Cand. A 6.157 .651 70 6.002 6.312 RBOCAID Cand. 8 5.988 .804 83 5.812 6.163 RECCAID Cand. C 6.368 .689 68 6.201 6.534 RECCAID Cand. D 6.260 .782 73 6.078 6.443 For entire salple 6.184 .748 294 6.098 6.270 Univariate F-tests with (3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F P282028 5.95863 158.12300 1.98621 .54525 3.64274 .013 lfiS TABLE 20 (Cont’d) Variable .. P282029 Respondent Is Healthy/Unhealthy FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. M 95 percent Conf . Interval RECCAND Cand. A 6.057 .976 70 5.824 6.290 RECCAND Cand. 8 6.012 .904 83 5.815 6.209 RECCAND Cand. C 6.162 .840 68 5.959 6.365 RECCAND Cand. D 6.014 1.007 73 5.779 6.249 For entire salple 6.058 .931 294 5.951 6.165 Univariate F-tests with ( 3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. MS Error M8 F Sig. of F P232029 1.05074 252.9662? .35025 .87230 .40152 .752 --------------------------------------------- Variable Variable . . P282030 Respondent Is Undisciplined/Disciplined FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. 14 95 percent Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.614 .997 70 5.377 5.852 RECCAND Cand. 8 5.735 .989 83 5.519 5.951 RECCAND Cand. C 5.897 .933 68 5.671 6.123 RECCAND Cand. D 5.740 1.093 73 5.485 5.995 For entire salple 5.745 1.005 294 5.630 5.860 Univariate F-tests with (3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. M8 Error M8 F Sig. of F P282030 2.77875 293.08860 .92625 1.01065 .91649 .433 Variable . . 9282031 Respondent Is Attractive /Unattractive FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. l 95 percent Cont . Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.357 .869 70 5.150 5.564 RECCAND Cand. B 4.988 .890 83 4.794 5.182 RECCAND Cand. C 5.221 .895 68 5.004 5.437 RECCAND Cand. D 5.233 1.048 73 4.988 5.477 For entire salple 5.190 .934 294 5.083 5.298 Univariate F-tests with ( 3,290) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hypoth. M8 Error MS F Sig. of F P252031 5.54168 249.79165 1.84723 .86135 2.14457 .095 156 LLSnmmam As was seen in the results described above, raters in this study did not demonstrate the general level of prejudice against the obese that was expected. Raters did not, overall, respond to the candidates in ways which suggest that the unattractive (i.e.,the obese stimuli in this setting) were less preferred as fellow employees, superiors or subordinates or were less likely to be hired, or to be given lower salaries. Results did show that subjects were more willing to place an obese female in a less desirable job and that raters were more willing to refuse to hire a female than a male stimulus. Results also indicated that subjects evaluated body weight differently for the male and female stimuli, being less likely to perceive the male stimulus as overweight even when his image was objectively increased to the same extent as was that of a female stimulus. Additionally, raters’ reactions to the candidates were generally not influenced by rater characteristics such as academic background or gender. There was a tendency for obese individuals to be harsher raters, but this conclusion must be viewed tentatively in light of the relatively small number of obese individuals in the sample. CHAPTER EIGHT RATER DESCRIPTIONS OF THE STIMULUS CANDIDATES 8.1__lntrndn_cIiQn In addition to the measures designed to assess the specific research hypotheses (see preceding chapter), respondents were also given several opportunities to provide general descriptions of their perceptions of the candidates. Respondents were asked to rate the candidates on a series of W. They were also asked to provide adjmu'yes which described the individual’s personality and Wm, and to indicate the candidate’s strengths and W. These responses were then reviewed to determine if they revealed information about raters’ reactions to the candidates that were not captured by the quantitative measurement items. The descriptors are reviewed and discussed in the pages that follow. 325 'E'Efi 'ISIE' Respondents were asked to provide their evaluations of the candidate on a series of semantic differential items. It was hoped that responses to the semantic differential items might be related to, and might help to explain, significant differences in measures of candidate desirability or to job placement or salary decisions. As was seen in the preceding chapter, there were few significant differences among candidates on outcomes such as ratings of candidate desirability or job placement. Because of the failure to find dramatic differences across conditions, the semantic differential items were not analyzed as measures of convergence with other candidate ratings but were reviewed as 157 1583 'I7A1313E3121 MEANS and STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE Variable .. P182021 Superior/Inferior FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. 5 95 percent Con;r_lntgryal RECCAND Cand. A 4.696 .626 69 4.545 4.846 RECCAND Cand. B 4.671 .771 82 4.501 4.840 RECCAND Cand. C 4.773 .697 66 4.601 4.944 RECCAND Cand. D 4.718 .740 71 4.543 4.894 For entire salple 4.712 .711 288 4.629 4.794 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Variable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Eypgrh. MS Errorlus F 810. Q£_F P132021 .40430 144.67556 .1347 .50942 26455 .851 Variable .. P182022 Weak/Strong __L__ACTOR CODE Mean std. Dev. WW RECCAND Cand. A 4.623 1.059 69 4.369 4.877 RECCAND Cand. B 4.622 1.038 82 4.394 4.850 RECCAND Cand. C 4.303 1.052 66 4.044 4.562 RECCAND Cand. D 4.225 1.149 71 3.953 4.497 For entire salple 4.451 1.084 288 4.326 4.577 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Variable flypgrh. 88 Error 88 flypgth. HS Error 58 F Sig. of I P132022 9.50230 327.81715 3.1674 1.15429 2.74406 .043 Variable .. P182023 Unfriendly/Friendly _rBACTOR CODE Egan Std. Dev. RECCAND Cand. A 4.884 1.266 69 4.580 5.188 RECCAND Cand. B 4.805 1.071 82 4.570 5.040 RECCAND Cand. C 5.091 1.173 66 4.803 5.379 RECCAND Cand. D 5.169 1.171 71 4.892 5.446 For entire sanple 4.979 1.171 288 4.843 5.115 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Var' 1 th. 88 F Sig. of F P132023 6.49811 387.37689 2.16604 1.36400 1.58800 .192 Variable .. P182024 Energetic/Sluggish _FACIQE CODE Jean std. Dev. WW RECCAND Cand. A 5.203 .867 69 4.995 5.411 RECCAND Cand. B 4.976 .831 82 4.793 5.158 RECCAND Cand. C 5.303 .877 66 5.088 5.519 RECCAND Cand. D 5.056 .843 71 4.857 5.256 For entire sanple 5.125 .858 288 5.025 5.225 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. JmLMLLmLSS—EMJS—M r sic. 2LT P132024 4.67532 206.82468 1.55844 .72826 2.13996 .095 156? TABLE 21 (Cont’d) Variable .. P182025 Flexible/Rigid FACTOR CODE Mean Std.rDev. R 95 percent Conf. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 5.174 .923 69 4.952 5.396 RECCAND Cand. B 4.963 .895 82 4.767 5.160 RECCAND Cand. C 4.985 .886 66 4.767 5.203 RECCAND Cand. D 5.239 .933 71 5.019 5.460 For entire salple 5.087 .912 288 4.981 5.193 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. ..Eézighle Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Hyperh. 58 Error 58 F Sigr_9fi;E P132025 4.11215 234.71771 1.3707 .8264? 1.65852 .176 Variable .. P182026 Careless/Careful FACTOR CODE Egan Std: Dev. l, 95 nersen1_§9ntr_1nter!a1 RECCAND Cand. A 4.812 1.287 69 4.503 5.121 RECCAND Cand. B 4.805 1.138 82 4.555 5.055 RECCAND Cand. C 4.985 1.170 66 4.697 5.272 RECCAND Cand. D 4.944 1.107 71 4.682 5.206 For entire salple 4.882 1.172 288 4.746 5.018 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Variable Experh, 88 Errgr 88 Experh, E8 Errgr M8 .F Sig. QE_E P132026 1.79784 392.18827 .59928 1.38094 .43396 .729 Variable .. P182027 Motivated/Unlotivated M CODE lie—an Std. Dev. LEW RECCAND Cand. A 5.478 .815 69 5.282 5.674 RECCAND Cand. B 5.317 .915 82 5.116 5.518 RECCAND Cand. C 5.303 .859 66 5.092 5.514 RECCAND Cand. D 5.282 .865 71 5.077 5.486 For entire salple 5.344 .865 288 5.243 5.444 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Veriehle Experh. 88 Errgr §§ Eypeth. HE Errer MS F Sigr_9f_E P132027 1.6896 213.27908 .56322 .75098 .74998 .523 Variable .. P182028 Passive/Active __FA<:TQR CODE Faan std. Dev. W RECCAND Cand. A 5.449 .916 69 5.229 5.669 RECCAND Cand. B 5.110 .861 82 4.921 5.299 RECCAND Cand. C 5.227 .837 66 5.021 5.433 RBOCAID Cand. D 5.239 .870 71 5.034 5.445 For entire salple 5.250 .876 288 5.148 5.352 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. I,“ i ;_ P , ‘ S 1vo ‘I ‘ 141‘. L i ‘vo ‘4 _ _.p F M P132028 4.39485 215.60515 1.46495 .7591 1.92967 .125 160 TABLE 21 (Cont’d) Variable . . P182029 Unsuccessful /Successful FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. 8 95 991882: Cont. Intervgl RECCAND Cand. A 4.870 .969 69 4.637 5.102 RECCAND Cand. B 4.854 1.020 82 4.630 5.078 RECCAND Cand. C 4.939 .943 66 4.708 5.171 RECCAND Cand. D 4.746 1.052 71 4.498 4.995 For entire salple 4.851 .996 288 4.735 4.966 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Varieble Eypgrh, 88 Error 88 Eypgrh, 88 Errer 58 F Sig. of F P132029 1.31568 283.26418 .43856 .99741 .43970 .725 Variable .. P182030 Unintelligent/Intelligent {ACTOR CODE Been 8rd, Der, I 25 pergent anf. Interygl RECCAHD Cand. A 5.478 .885 69 5.266 5.691 RECCAND Cand. B 5.220 .917 82 5.018 5.421 RECCAND Cand. C 5.485 .808 66 5.286 5.684 RECCAND Cand. D 5.338 .909 71 5.123 5.553 For entire salple 5.372 .886 288 5.269 5.474 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. V ' . 33 . MS I Sid. of E P132030 3.60818 221.63834 1.20273 .78042 1.54114 .204 Variable .. P182031 Extroverted/Introverted ___£A§IQRr CODBC. IEdn_______3iQr_D9E1______I___2§_D§IQEDL_§QDEL_LEIEIIEI RECCAND Cand. A 4.957 .812 69 4.761 5.152 RECCAND Cand. B 4.805 .728 82 4.645 4.965 RECCAND Cand. C 5.091 .836 66 4.885 5.296 RECCAND Cand. D 5.028 .845 71 4.828 5.228 For entire sanple 4.962 .806 288 4.868 5.055 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Jariable Hypoth. 85 W F P132031 3.43404 183.14582 1.14468 .64488 1.77503 .152 Variable . . P182032 Attentive/Inattentive JACTQE cont BEL Std. Dev. Liimmnmntalnteml RECCAID Cand. A 5.029 .804 69 4.836 5.222 RBCCAHD Cand. B 4.841 .777 82 4.671 5.012 RECCAND Cand. C 4.939 .762 66 4.752 5.127 RECCAID Cand. D 5.155 .839 71 4.956 5.354 For entire salple 4.986 .801 288 4.893 5.079 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. V ' P Signet! P132032 4.01004 179.93440 1.33668 .63357 2.10975 .099 161 TABLE 21 (Cont’d) Variable .. P182033 Uncooperative/Cooperative E81103 COEE Mean 838, 21, E 28 pereenr gent, Inrervel RECCAND Cand. A 5.058 1.042 69 4.808 5.308 RECCAND Cand. B 4.939 .947 82 4.731 5.147 RECCAND Cand. C 4.909 1.003 66 4.662 5.156 RECCAND Cand. D 5.155 1.104 71 4.894 5.416 For entire salple 5.014 1.022 288 4.895 5.132 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Jariable moth. 55 W 1‘ 51941.1 P132033 2.73089 297.21356 .91030 1.04653 .86983 .457 Variable .. P182034 Unproductive/Productive Jim CODE neon std. Dev. L.Eipercemmllntmal RECCAND Cand. A 5.072 .960 69 4.842 5.303 RECCAND Cand. B 5.085 .932 82 4.881 5.290 RECCAND Cand. C 5.136 .857 66 4.926 5.347 RECCAND Cand. D 5.042 1.101 71 4.782 5.303 For entire sanple 5.083 .963 288 4.972 5.195 Univariate F-tests with ( 3,284) D. F. F Sig. 91 E P132034 .31391 265. 68609 .10464 .93551 .11185 .953 Variable .. P182035 Articulate/Inarticulate JAQQL CODE lean Std. Dev. WW RECCAND Cand. A 5.493 .933 69 5.269 5.717 RECCAND Cand. B 5.085 .834 82 4.902 5.269 RECCAND Cand. C 5.227 1.064 66 4.966 5.489 RECCAND Cand. D 5.197 .839 71 4.999 5.396 For entire salple 5.243 .924 288 5.136 5.350 Univariate F-tests with (3, 284) D. F. Variable . P182036 Felinine/Masculine m M M Std. Dev. 1 9W1 RECCAND Chad. A 5.217 1.041 69 4 967 5.468 RECCAND Cand. B 3.524 .972 82 3.311 3.738 RECCAID Cand. C 4.879 1.015 66 4.629 5.128 RBOCAID Cand. D 3.394 1.102 71 3.134 3.655 For entire salple 4.208 1.303 288 4.057 4.359 Univariate F-tests with (3, 284) D. F. ,, ' : _ .: _ F 819,41! P182036 185. 32160 302.17840 61. 77387 1.06401 58.05768 .000 1432 TABLE 21 (Cont’d) Variable .. P182037 Decisive/Indecisive FACTOR 0008 Mean Std. Dev. 14 95 rcent Co nte va RECCAND Cand. A 4.928 .880 69 4.716 5.139 RECCAND Cand. B 5.049 .901 82 4.851 5.247 RECCAND Cand. C 4.985 .850 66 4.776 5.194 RECCAND Cand. D 5.056 .876 71 4.849 5.264 For entire sample 5.007 .876 288 4.905 5.108 Univariate F-tests with (3, 284) D. F. Verigle Emmss gror 88 EypeQMS mor M8 1‘ Sid. QLE P132037 .78406 219. 20206 .26135 .77184 .33861 .797 Variable .. P182038 Incapable/Capable FACTOR CODE ream std. Dev. 1 gsrnergentJDLInteml RECCAND Cand. A 5.217 .983 69 4.981 5.454 RECCAND Cand. B 5.134 1.028 82 4.908 5.360 RECCAND Cand. C 5.152 .949 66 4.918 5.385 RECCAND Cand. D 5.211 1.182 71 4.931 5.491 For entire salple 5.177 1.036 288 5.057 5.297 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Verr'erle Eypeth. 88 firor 88 8mg, 88 Mr 58 F Sig,_e£_E P132038 .38939 307.57936 .12980 1.08303 .11985 .948 Variable . . P182039 Uneducated/Educated __FAC'I_OE CODE Eran std. Dev. WWW RECCAND Cand. A 6.159 .740 69 5.982 6.337 RECCAND Cand. B 5.866 .926 82 5.662 6.069 RECCAND Cand. C 5.924 .730 66 5.745 6.104 RECCAND Cand. D 5.901 .913 71 5.685 6.117 For entire salple 5.958 .842 288 5.861 6.056 Univariate F-tests with (3, 284) D. F. : . _ I am P132039 3. 79816 199. 70184 1.26605 .70318 1.80048 .147 Variable . . P182040 Honest/Dishonest _FACIDL CODE Jean std. Dev. WM RBCCAID Cand. A 5.304 .960 69 5.074 5.535 RECCAID Cand. B 5.183 1.079 82 4.946 5.420 RECCAND Cand. C 5.242 1.053 66 4.983 5.501 RECCAND Cand. D 5.423 .995 71 5.187 5.658 For entire sanple 5.285 1.024 288 5.166 5.403 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. 13.111301: 51119111. 88 m 88 Eypgrh. 88 Egor 118 F Signet E P132040 2.34283 298.30995 .78094 1.05039 .74348 .527 Variable .. P182041 TABLE 21 (Cont’d) 1(13 Eard-workinq/Lazy FACTORr 0008. Mean Std. Dev. E 9549ercentrConfir_1nrerrel RECCAND Cand. A 5.449 .883 69 5.237 5.662 RECCAND Cand. B 5.280 .906 82 5.081 5.480 RECCAND Cand. C 5.303 .911 66 5.079 5.527 RECCAND Cand. D 5.437 .967 71 5.208 5.666 For entire sanple 5.365 .916 288 5.258 5.471 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. __!Driable Hypoth. 88 Error 88 Experh. E8 Errer 88 .F .8i91_D£_Z P132041 1.69332 239.02543 .5644 .84164 .67065 .571 Variable .. P182042 Untrustwortby/Trustworthy M 0008 Mean Std. Dev. WW RECCAND Cand. A 5.174 1.111 69 4.907 5.441 RECCAND Cand. B 5.061 1.070 82 4.826 5.296 RECCAND Cand. C 5.076 .982 66 4.834 5.317 RECCAND Cand. D 5.507 .969 71 5.278 5.736 For entire salple 5.201 1.047 288 5.080 5.323 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. V ' e . th. F Sigrre£_E P132042 9.34359 304.97586 3.11453 1.07386 2.90032 .035 Variable .. P182043 Albitious/Unanbitious EAQTQR CODE Mean Std. v. R 9 ce 0 RECCAND Cand. A 5.536 .797 69 5.345 5.728 RECCAND Cand. B 5.329 .890 82 5.134 5.525 RECCAND Cand. C 5.288 .873 66 5.073 5.502 RECCAND Cand. D 5.310 .935 71 5.089 5.531 For entire sanple 5.365 .877 288 5.263 5.466 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. a '4) i i r: J 1 he 0. i . . ._ B Sigr_0£_£ P132043 2.73617 217.98258 .91206 .76754 1.18828 .314 Variable . . P182044 Iuature/Mature 4m CODE Egan std. Dev. WM RECCAND Cand. A 5.232 1.202 69 4.943 5.521 RBCCAID Cand. B 5.317 1.099 82 5.076 5.558 RBCCAID Cand. C 4.864 1.188 66 4.572 5.156 RECCAND Cand. D 5.380 1.047 71 5.132 5.628 For entire salple 5.208 1.144 288 5.076 5.341 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Variable worn. ss Error 55 m. as Errer as r M P132044 10.94893 364.55107 3.64964 1.28363 2.84322 .038 1(94 TABLE 21 (Cont’d) Variable .. P182045 Popular/Unpopular EAQTQR CODE Meen Std. Dev. 8. 95 percent Cont, Interyel RECCAND Cand. A 4.594 .773 69 4.408 4.780 RECCAND Cand. B 4.476 .757 82 4.309 4.642 RECCAND Cand. C 4.697 .877 66 4.481 4.912 RECCAND Cand. D 4.648 .776 71 4.464 4.832 For entire sanple 4.597 .795 288 4.505 4.689 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Var'able . th. F Sig. 9: E P182045 2.05230 179.22548 .68410 .63108 1.08402 .356 Variable .. P182046 Messy/Meat __ACTDF R CODE Egan std. Dev. 11 95W RECCAND Cand. A 5.188 1.364 69 4.861 5.516 RECCAND Cand. B 4.695 1.312 82 4.407 4.983 RECCAND Cand. C 4.939 1.226 66 4.638 5.241 RECCAND Cand. D 4.775 1.256 71 4.477 5.072 For entire sanple 4.889 1.299 288 4.738 5.040 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Vg,i29, ~150-I. . 84.0 ., i190 I L 34 0 .~ 4F .sigr_9£_E P132046 10.36373 474.08072 3.45458 1.66930 2.06948 .104 Variable . . P182047 Happy/Unhappy ME CODE MW RECCAND Cand. A 5.116 .883 69 4.904 5.328 RECCAND Cand. B 4.659 .773 82 4.489 4.828 RECCAND Cand. C 4.939 .909 66 4.716 5.163 RECCAND Cand. D 4.817 .833 71 4.620 5.014 For entire salple 4.872 .860 288 4.772 4.971 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. JariaDle Hypoth. ss . r M P182047 8.35775 203.88878 2.78592 .71792 3.88055 .010 Variable .. P182048 Healthy/Unhealthy M CODE EDD Std. Dev. MW RECCAND Cand. A 5.464 .948 69 5.236 5.692 RECCAID Cand. 8 4.915 .971 82 4.701 5.128 RECCAND Cand. C 5.242 1.009 66 4.994 5.490 RECCAND Cand. D 4.901 .943 71 4.678 5.125 For entire salple 5.118 .991 288 5.003 5.233 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. ' 1' SisLDLI P132048 15.99318 265.99293 5.33106 .93659 5.69196 .001 1415 TABLE 21 (Cont’d) Variable .. P182049 Insecure/Secure FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 95 percent Corr. Interval RECCAND Cand. A 4.754 1.387 69 4.420 5.087 RECCAND Cand. B 4.659 1.239 82 4.386 4.931 RECCAND Cand. C 4.591 1.336 66 4.263 4.919 RECCAND Cand. D 4.169 1.298 71 3.862 4.476 For entire salple 4.545 1.324 288 4.392 4.699 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Veriable Eypgrn. 88 Error 88 Eypgth. E8 Error ES F Sig. of F P132049 14.23620 489.17700 4.74540 1.72245 2.75502 .043 Variable .. P182050 Undisciplined/Disciplined ___EA§TQE CODE Mean Std. Dev. 95 nt a RECCAND Cand. A 5.217 1.110 69 4.951 5.484 RECCAND Cand. B 5.012 1.149 82 4.760 5.265 RECCAND Cand. C 4.955 1.115 66 4.680 5.229 RECCAND Cand. D 5.070 1.280 71 4.768 5.373 For entire salple 5.062 1.164 288 4.927 5.198 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Veriable Eypetn 88 Errer 88 829988, H8 Errer H8 F Sig. of F P182050 2.63654 386.23846 .87885 1.35999 .64621 .586 Variable . . P182051 Confident/Unsure FACTOR CODE Heen 8td. Dev. 5 25 pereenr 998:, Inrerygl RECCAND Cand. A 5.348 .905 69 5.131 5.565 RECCAND Cand. B 5.195 .853 82 5.008 5.382 RECCAND Cand. C 5.288 .760 66 5.101 5.475 RECCAND Cand. D 5.239 .870 71 5.034 5.445 For entire salple 5.264 .847 288 5.166 5.362 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Veriflle Emrh. 88 mor 88 EM, [[8 mgr [18 F Sig. at E P182051 .9543 204.99010 .31811 .72180 .44073 .724 Variable . . P182052 Attractive/Unattractive ___EA§IQBD, .CODE .Eean Std. Dev., .I___2§_R§££§DL_§DDED_IDLQI131 RECCAND Cand. A 4.783 .855 69 4.577 4.988 RBCCAHD Cand. B 4.683 .859 82 4.494 4.872 RECCAND Cand. C 4.682 .844 66 4.474 4.889 RECCAND Cand. D 4.493 .630 71 4.344 4.642 For entire salple 4.660 .806 288 4.566 4.753 Univariate F-tests with (3,284) D. F. Verierle BEDDID. 88 Error 88 RIDDLE. E8 Errgr 58 F Sig. of F P182052 3.09289 183.55989 1.03096 .64634 1.59508 .191 166 independent items. The means and variances of each of the semantic differential items can found in Table 21 . In comparing across the values, the reader should be advised that items 21, 24, 25, 27, 31, 32, 35, 37,40, 42, 45, 47, 48, 51, and 52 were reverse-scored so that higher values in each case indicate more positive qualities. As can be seen in those figures, there was very little differentiation across candidates in terms of raters’ perceptions of them. Using a significance value of .05, there are significant differences across candidates on the following bipolar adjective pairs: Item 22: "Weak/Strong" : Comparing the results obtained across the candidates, Candidates A and B (the average—weight candidates) received ratings significantly stronger than Candidate D (the overweight ferrule (z = 2.17, p < .05) Item 35: ”Arficulate/mardadate': Comparing results obtained acmss the candidates, Candidate A (avera‘geweight male) is rated assignificantly morearticulatethanCandidatesBandD (the female candidates) (2 == 1.97,p < .05). Item 36: ”Masculine/Feminine“: Comparing the results obtained acrosscandidates, candidatesAandC (males)areratedas significantly more masculine than the females (candidates B and D) (2 = 8.37, significant at p < .05). However, there was also a trend indicating that the overweight male was perceived as less masculine than the average-weight male (2 = 1.91, p < .056). 'I‘hemeansforthefemaleswerenotsignificantly differentfrom one another (2 = .77, not significant at p < .05). Item 42: ”Tmstworthy/Untrustworthy": Comparing the results obtained across candidates, Candidate D (overweight female) was rated as significantly rmre trustworthy than both Candidate C (overweight male)(z = 2.56, significant at p < .05) and Candidate B (averageweight female) (7. = 2.71, significant at p < .05). The differences between candidate D (overweight ferrule) and candidate A (average-weight male) were not significant (2 = 1.89, not significant atp < .05). 167 Item 44: ”Mature/Immature": Comparing the results obtained across candidates, Candidate D (overweight female) received a significantly higher maturity rating than Candidate C (overweight male), but Candidate C’s mean rating was not significantly higher than those of the other two conditions (e. g.,comparing A to C, the next largest gap, 2 = 1.79, not significant at p < .05). Item 47: "Happy/ Unhappy ": Comparing the results obtained across candidates, Candidate A (average-weight male) received a mean happiness rating that was significantly greater than means of the female candidates (comparing A to B [average-weight female], 2 = 3.52, significant at p < .05; comparing A to D [overweight female], 2 = 2.08, significant at p < .05). Candidate A’s mean rating was not significantly greater than that of Candidate C (overweight male), and C’s mean was not greater than B (average-weight female) or D (overweight female) (2 = .82, not significant at p < .05). Item 48: ”Healthy/Unhealthy” (alpha = .001): Comparing across candidates, Candidates A (average-weight male) and C (overweight male) had means significantly greater than those of the female stimuli (z = 3.51, significant at p < .05). The mean values for A and C, however, were not significantly different from one another (2 = 1.32, not significant at p < .05) Item 49: "Secure/Insecure“: Comparing across candidates, Candidate D (overweight female) had a mean rating which was significantly lower than the means for A (average-weight male) or B (average-weight female). Comparing A to D, z = 2.58, significant at p < .05. Comparing B to D, 2 = 2.38, significant at p < .05. The difference between means for Candidates C (overweight male) and D (overweight female) were not significant at the conventional level of p < .05, but approached significance (p < .065). Of the thirty-two items in the semantic differential scale, eight generated significant differences across the candidates. Of those eight significant items, one is the masculinity/ femininity dimension, where significant differences would be expected due to the differences in gender of the stimulus individuals. If one imposes a more stringent confidence interval, in the interest of controlling for type I error (i.e., the 168 danger of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is in fact true or of ”finding" significance by chance), and then uses the level of p < .01 , only items 36 (Masculinity/Femininity), 47 (Unhappy/Happy) and 48 (Unhealthy/Healthy) remain for consideration. One may then conclude that Candidate A (the average-weight male) was perceived as happier and healthier than the others; however, as will be indicated in the subsequent review of the other outcome variables, he was not necessarily seen as a more desirable job candidate. Intercorrelations among the semantic differential items are provided in Appendix D. 822 Q l . I .. [C fl . 8221!1° '12 I'll . In questions 17 through 20, raters were asked to provide more qualitative reactions to the candidate. Question 17 asked raters to “Give three adjectives to describe this individual’s personality. " The descriptors assigned to each candidate are listed in Figures 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. Figures in parentheses following an adjective are indicators of how many respondents within that particular condition applied that label to the candidate. For example, for Candidate A, the response ”Adventurous (2)” indicates that two subjects labelled the candidate as adventurous. Additionally, the side-by-side listings provided in Figures 18—23 indicate which responses were found either (a) only in descriptions of the male stimuli (coded with a '@' symbol), (1)) only in descriptors of the female stimuli (coded with a " + " symbol), (c) only for the average-weight stimuli (coded with a '*'), or (d) only applied to the overweight stimuli (coded with a ”ll" symbol). Descriptors unique to a single candidate are underlined. 169 To aid in interpretation of these items, adjectives were coded regarding their content. The author reviewed all responses: adjectives that were assessed as be clearly positive were coded as such; adjectives which were assessed as clearly negative were also coded as such. All other adjectives were assigned to the neutral category. The ratings generated were then reviewed by four other raters (faculty of the author’s university) who indicated their agreement or disagreement with the author’s categorizing (positive, negative, or neutral) of the adjectives were placed. The raters agreed with 95% of the adjectives coded by the author as positive and 90% of those coded as negative. The percentage of items which all raters agreed should be coded as neutral dropped to 69%. This is not surprising, given that mesa neutral adjectives are those which are least readily categorizable and thus most subject to alternative interpretations. Becauselessconfidencecanbeplacedintheneuualdescriptors,and fewer conclusions can be drawn regarding them, the discussion that follows will focus primarily on the positive and negative descriptors offered. The summary of responses across conditions for question 17 : ”Give three adjectives to describe this individual’s personality“ are provided in Figtn'es 18, 19, and 20. It is difficult to make readily interpretable comparisons across candidates due to me large number of descriptors generated. What may be noted is the relative proportion of descriptors in the positive, negative and neutral categories and the descriptors which were generated regarding specific candidates. See also Table 22, which is titled “Summary of Adjective Responses. " 170 As can be seen in Table 22, candidate A (average-weight male) garnered the largest proportion of 129311119 descriptors: 61.6%. That is, of all the adjective descriptors recorded for this candidate, 61.6% were positive; 52.4% of the descriptors for Candidate B were positive; and 52.6% of the descriptors for Candidate D were positive. Using the test of proportions described in Mason, Lind and Marchal (1991, page 315), these proportions were compared to each other in a technique which produced Z-score measures of the differences between the two proportions. Results indicate that these proportions are not significantly different from each other (comparing Candidate B to Candidate D, Z = .04, non-significant at p < .05), nor are they are significantly lower than the proportion of positives accorded to Candidate A (comparing A to D, Z = 1.77, non— significant at p < .05; comparing A to B, Z = 1.17, non-significant at p < .05). Candidate C fared the worst in this category, with 46.6% of responses being positive, a proportion significantly lower (Z = 2.02, significant at p < .05) than that obtained by Candidate A, but not significantly different from the other proportions recorded. E 3.. . 353325 . .25. E .835 2:53 i .35.! is. 3.3.2.. 321?...- . 923.5 :5 3.8 a. as; 5...... 23.5333 .2. 512 e383 . S 2535.- E 2:83 £388- 5 338.3 :3 5 gal...- gag. .388. fig .2 .o a 8.338 E 3.5.. =8 88! 3 3:32. . E is . :3: sens—H 35.53 E .88. 2832.. 3.8.5. o E E.- .3928 g a: 583 2:85 :33 as; E 85 :38: E 25.5 5 i=5 882.5 :5 E 2.86 “an. E 3 338.5 gag 3838.3 .358. an]. o 3.325 E 3.58 in 5 i=3: E: 8:83 E .583: 3:8. «as. E 2%... 2.. 3a. in. 88 55 .3 58:. :8 .232953 E 93.8.... t E 3.83 83?: 5 an. 3.3 anus-Ea E :38: g .82. . ea 8 e 88:3 a: “33.8 g 3.38 35a + is 22.: 2:5: E 3:83.: 5 go; . :38 £558. .5; 5 .a . 3.32: 53:33....- u! .88—3 8:: =8 :32. al. 3 =3 :3: a... a 2!... 23.-as u. :3: £3.55: a "5 889 S 35.8 a... E :38: a: S .233: E 2:23 .553 use Eels E 3.8. as! E Fan. .5- . E :5 58% 88 a: :32 FIGURE 18 CANDIDATE PERSONALITY Anracrrva nascnnrrons: Posmvas 172 E 3.8.... 5 3:28 .3 one... ...-3: 3.56:. E 35.. $358.: g .2382 33388 E 2338 . I8 5 a: _ .§§ 335 a: .o a 8.338 a... E 822 sane. E :8...“ 258:8 .2 sense... 38988 :38... E “as: .5882 5 E038 88 a: a 85.32333. . .... sang g g 33:3 ““333 E .5. “fig . 5 use... :.ea:m 3 288-225... 5356-23 3:38.28. 28:892.... snares . E :38 Enema?» .. 5 Ban: 28558. 35.. :28. use 3 gas: . 25982. 5 £038 3 88 a: “haze.— .Eg a: .o . 33.35 g 3% . E 92: Earns. 3.58.23 “3:80-23 5 assassin sense.- .. 33.. , 3:2 al.... 5 2:28. £3 .58.: “ass: 5 33.82 E §§8 E as a: o as. .288. g... . .335 FIGURE 18 (WW 173 325333:iisgaiiiiiiiisiiggiiiis; mm (meld drive a crazy) introvsrt n hmen W Passive mu Spastic eyes 6 unit mama autumn hissplrilg mun nmmumn In! (2) l I unsorted (2) mm W um m In energy l mm m Imus Ion aggressive (2) I Z -i 8 g a- A éa 3 E; " as ~53? “3 g “E ig §§~ iéisiialiéiéii iiiizzitgalzaisalttitia §§§.g§ a - ~3§§5§ i a , int? aiiiiaiaii siéégsraiiig a iéfiii FIGURE19 CANDIDATE PERSONALITY ADJECTIVE DESCRIPTORS: NEGATIVES 174 EEiii i“a§ii§Eii§E A V 3233? EIEEEEE253sEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ~33 -" EEEEEEEE EEEEEE EEEEE EEEEazissziéiEEE.aaaEEE A iiisai aiEEEaia Ea EEEEIEE EEES=E Ea Eii E if“: FIGURE 20 CANDIDATE PERSONALITY ADJEC'I'IVE DESCRIPTORS: NEUTRALS 175 Regarding negative personality descriptors (see Figure 19): Candidate C (overweight male) fared the worst, with 23 % of responses being negative. This proportion, however, is not significantly greater than the others (comparing C to D: 2 == .97, not significant at p < .05; comparing C to B: 2 == .07, not significant atp < .05). Female candidates B and D again were not different from one another in terms of negative descriptors, with the proportion of responses being 18.6% and 18.9% respectively. Candidate A (average- weight male) fared the best, with only 15.3 % of responses being negative. However, again, in terms of statistical significance this proportion is not significantly different from the others (comparing A to C, the greatest difference between proportions, z = .88, not significant at p < .05). Neutralpersonality descriptorsforthecandidateswereallocatedasfoliows (seealso Figure 20): 23.2% of responses to Candidate A (average—weight male) were neutral; 29% of responses to Candidate B (average—weight female) were neutral; 30.5 % of responses to Candidate C (overweight male) were neutral; and 28.6% of responses to Candidate D (overweight female) were neutral. None of these proportions were significantly different fromoneanotherinasetofpairwisecomparisonsofproportions (comparingAtoC,the greatest difference between proportions, z =2 .09, not significant at p < .05). If this difference is not significant, it can be safely assumed that none of the smaller differences Overall, then, in terms of personality—related attributions, Candidate A (average- weight-male)generated a marginally more positive response, although this difference was not statistically significant at p < .05. There was of course a significant amount of 176 overlap across the categories of personality descriptors. The similarities and differences across the candidates will be briefly reviewed. For example, a few positing descriptors were applied only to specific categories of candidates. The terms “clean,” ”happy" and ”neat," were applied only to the male candidates. The terms “assertive,” "caring,“ 'courageous,‘ ”educated,“ and ”enthusiastic” were applied only to the female candidates. The term “active" was found only in descriptors of the average-weight candidates (A and B). There were also positive descriptors which were unique to one candidate. Candidate A (average-weight male), for example, was the only individual for whom the descriptors of ”agreeable," "ambitious," “challenging," ”congenial," ”dedicated," ”healthy," ‘nrature,’ ”polite,” “trustworthy“ and "wholesome” were generated. Candidate B’s (average-weight female) unique mama descriptors included ”charming," “cheerful," "composed,“ ”courteous,“ 'decisive,‘ “determined,” ”direct,” “frank," “giving,“ “hopeful,“ “independent,” ”poised,” ”understanding,” and ”well rounded.“ It might be noted that these descriptors, unlike those generated for Candidate A,tendtobemoreorientedtothedomainofsocialbehaviorratherthantoindividual behavior. That is, a number of the unique descriptors generated for Candidate A (e.g., ambitious, dedicated, healthy, mature) describe him as an individual; a number of the unique descriptors of Candidate B (e.g., charming, cheerful, courteous, giving, tmderstanding) related to her skills or abilities in relating to others. 177 Unique positive descriptors for Candidate C (overweight male) included "assured," " good appearance,” "informative, and “popular. " It is noteworthy that this candidate was deemed to have “good appearance“ despite the image alteration; no similar descriptor was provided for the expanded female candidate image. Unique positive descriptors for Candidate D (overweight female) included "approachable,” "brave,” ”comfortable,” ”communicative,“ “competent," ”devoted,” 'diligent,‘ ”imaginative,“ ”impressive,“ “persuasive," "reliable,“ ”skillful," “smart,“ 'stable,‘ “staunch, " and ”thoughtful. " While these descriptors do not relate to the social domain as specifically as did the descriptors for the other female candidate, it is worth noting that neither do any of these unique descriptors imply action or activity. Rather, they call to mind someone who is ”devoted, diligent, stable, staunch'--faithfirl but not flashy, not outstanding in skills or effort. In the negatixe personality descriptors, fewer commonalities were observed. Both male candidates were described as ”timid;' both overweight candidates were described as “low energy," ”non—aggressive,“ ”sluggish,“ and “weak." It is interesting that the commonalities unique to the overweight candidates all related to inactivity or low levels of energy, lending further support to the presence of such a component in the social stereotype of the overweight. Commonalities across the two female candidates included ”lacks expression, " "selkonscious' and ”sloppy. ' Cmdidate A (average-weight male) was described as 178 “unkept“ (sic), so there is some overlap across candidates, but “sloppy“ seems to imply a somewhat more pejorative judgment. Both these comments, however, may be responses to the fact that neither candidate wore a jacket or a suitcoat. Several comments regarding the inappropriateness of the applicant’s dress were made in this and other sections of the questionnaire. As regards unique negative personality descriptors, there was much more variation across the candidates in this category. Candidate A (average-weight male) was described as “anxious,“ “cold,“ “ego-centric“ (sic), “immature,“ “stiff,“ “uncertain,“ and “unimaginative.” Candidate B’s (average-weight female) negative descriptors included “lacks some confidence,“ “not particular to appearance,“ “non-energetic,“ “non-stimulating,“ “opportunistic,“ “pushy,“ “stifled,“ “strange,“ “uneasy,“ “unhappy,“ “uninspiring,“ “unspontaneous' (sic), and “wordy.“ Candidate C‘s (overweight male) unique negafiyes included “arrogant,“ “deceiving,“ “fake,“ “impulsive,“ “indecisive,“ “inhibited,“ “insecure,“ “lacking,“ “lackluster,“ “listless,“ “loner,“ “mousey,” . “non-assertive,“ “non-distinguishing,“ “silly,“ “unassuming,“ “unfriendly,“, “unresponsive,“ and “W“ (sic). Candidate D’s (overweight female) unique negating include “dry,“ “flavorless,“ ”lacks direction,“ “lacks assertiveness,“ “low esteem,“ “overweight,“ “repetitive,“ “restive,“ “sheeplike,” “slow,“ “too serious,“ “too proper,“ and “unencumbered.“ 179 As regards neutral descriptors: Paired comparisons of the proportions of neutral responses accorded to each candidate show no significant differences in paired comparisons across the conditions. Proportions ranged from 23 % for Candidate A (average-weight male) to 30.5% for Candidate C (overweight male), but these differences can be attributable only to slight fluctuations in response patterns across the candidates (comparing A to C, 2 == .09, not significant at p < .05). There were a number of commonalities across this category. All candidates were described as “average“, “controlled,“ and “plain.“ Both male candidates were described as “serious“ or “somber“ and as “non«threatening;“ both female candidates were described as “curious“ and “determined,“ while the latter adjective was applied only to the average-weight male. In general, the neutral descriptors paint a picture of an applicant who is quiet, serious, not exciting, nor excitable. 5222”. 'IEEIH' E . Regarding the descriptors applied to the candidates“ work history (Q. 18: “Give three adjectives to describe this individual’s experience or work history“), the responses to this question are summarized in Figures 21, 22, and 23 (see pages 181, 182, and 183). A summation of mese values is also provided in Table 23. The proportions of respondents providing Mime descriptors (Figure 21) were approximately equal across conditions, with paired comparative tests of proportions indicating no significant diffminmemopmfiomofmsim,meauxemnnmlrespmsesaccordedwm 180 candidate. For the posing: descriptors, comparing candidate B (average-weight female) to candidate C (overweight male), the greatest difference between proportions, yields a 2 score = .77, not significant at p < .05. For the negative descriptors, also comparing B (average-weight female) to C (overweight male) (the largest difference), 2 = .46, not significant at p < .05. For the neutnl descriptors, comparing candidate A (average- weight male) to candidate D (overweight female) (the greatest difference across proportions), z = .51, not significant at p < .05. Indeed, across positive, negative and neutral descriptors of work history there was a high level of similarity of response patterns, with about 28-30% of responses being positive, about 60% negative, and 10-12% being negative in content. 181 .93.. :5 a as: sale . 38:3 8:3... :8 355-2... E 3:85-"? :33... 228.5 a E 358 as 3.533 .35... €3.33... .. .0.-.2923: E 3.32 :3 :8 :33. 2.! .. #35: 23.3.. :8 :33» .3 a 5:538... a ...: €83 3888... Qua-08» £3 8:3 2:53.... Egg 5 sea .85... 5 358-2... .33... 3:25 :3 33" 3.33 :3 as E 3.8. :3 3683.28. .2: 22:... 3339.3 332.. :3 E .333 an: alias £989: 5:333 238a E .330... 3.53.” S .238: 7:338 33838 :3... E 238... 1.53 a: la :33 as?” as V. a 23 23.5 2.3 E 3.5... E 253%.. E 5.2.2.. is ...: an! E 23%.. E 2:88... E .3598 53225.! E 535: E 3.5.... :22“; 5433 2355 5.38 5 “8:3 3.: E 3:38.. gas 258?: 3.52553 :35 3555.3 .583: E :33! E 3:28 :58: E .3253. 3. E: 88 S 53:! 2.838 fig sees: 83 5 all 3.3.38.8 fig 88 as. as... £2335 ease: E 2.23... E Ens .5 E 5.3- 2: E 882.5 E 38:25 E was a: 3.8 .5. at... as .828: . E 988:...- E 88 E 38 Baa. E .535 a E 32.8 335 85-38 565 an 2.3.28 . 238.! g _ 2382 again .328 . 355 “3.23 . aid . .318 g . 263 3.28.2. 3.53 .325 3.22.5 gau- 3382 "Haas .3538 “flag 358. 58. In 33 .85- !- 56 .53. 8. .26 .53. I8 .3... a 8.318 9 883 a 8.338 a 8.33 FIGURE 21 CANDIDATE WORK HISTORY ADIECI‘IVE DESCRIPTORS: POSITIVES 182 Inconsistanttsic) new nmwmmn meu) tmn W uninteresting mum ulna-sin (3) mm D 0.1!: a m m 11"! Sporadic (2) «E- as g s 3 3 .2 A}; 3.: 33:5 332 3533223 .5“ , 3,: 33%; a; a 3 a e; = 2 E=§£ iii a; £233? éaaéigésiiz 5:3” ‘3 ; ‘ 3533 33 35 g: c 8 fig é g Egg; gg' ., §~ g a“ 25:53 zi§§=é ’ 3:5 afiiagfiaiigm i 2:223:33 FIGURE 22 CANDIDATE WORK HISTORY ADIECI'IVE DESCRIPTORS: NEGATIVES 183 .33.» .3 3 ss- ila 3.23 3:38 =8 23:... 58.5 a :5.» €3.83... .. :8 "in” 2.... x .32..- .3 .3: .3 a 33.!!! "E 83 .23. 53. 8......- £33 a 25:533.. 5 .5833 5. gain 3 E “5.25.. :35... g a 35833 :95. gait... g E: :3 53 “is... E £583: 343:: 382.5. Enga- g 3.35 E is... 3:3 5 2.3.3 3.3.8 . 3:2 3.09.3.3 33 Sign: flan-B E 9:83.: is? as g. I: 33.. 523 53!. 3.33:: an! 5 359.3 8.3 25.5 E 3:835 5 Biz 5 3:32: 83% :35 g 5 £33 Esau 345.. . 383 33!. E 35.53 E 25:23 .35 5.33 Ea E .383 E 83.3 .325 538 33a . 353 as 3:528 g 3533?. E 833 E E: 23328 323 3.38 «5:8 55:3 8.5 3:3: .338 353 3:58.33 33:28 a; .2: 885.8 E 23238 in 3:5 5 3288 :5 s.§:-.§§ o .3383 35.8 E 35... as! in 333: .358 a 2% flag 5 38.8.3.3» 325 a .85 E ESE 38?. “85.8 2:53.355 358 33% E 35 E 3.28 38:3 3:2 8.5.8 5 336.8. E ....- E 38. E 382.. again E 82.. :33 E 38 E 88. E 3: E as... a! E :3 35:. 3.353 as... is: a E gag. E 93.3.. aiua. as... E mass... 333.. E 3...... 83:... E 3.3.: E 3.53 5:82 _ 335. snag g a "a ”a «as! g In ”.85. In :85. I8 :88- Is “3 .o .a as “2 .o .u .38 3a .a .n as “3 .o 3 53 FIGURE 23 CANDIDATE WORK HISTORY ADJECTIVE DESCRIPTORS: NEUTRALS 184 33% as: 3 835 file 33:: 2:38 :8 23958 a :5 .Eiag. u. :38 :8 =3: 2!. x 23% .3 =33 .5 a 38.3: 92:. “5 855 E :35 and: “8:28 3:: flag a: 8:: a: it: use :23. an; E .858 332.3: g E 38.3 in .82.. E 3...... .2 gnaw. 9E5: .0 :2... 8355 :3 E .3... :53“... E 33-55 225; a: 2:. 335 E can Eu. 2...: lanai .8. as 8 IE 55 E 5...... as: 3:. “Ila 83 :2 3:. 35 a as g 33 «3‘53 5 .3 Ba 3:33 6.. 5 us. :22...— 3 8525... as! its... :3... £355 as... E 23» E Se «.8qu 595 .22 .5 Se In! 3.5 53% E 83 tea Ill :5 its... as 53 E :8 all a E as :2» 33% g 33:3 5 Ezfina .53 i g E :8 gain: 39.: 98.2 53 «55.. 3.33 a: 2.58 53! . 8:8 is. .55 Sudan]- Hg!- 83 a; insa- "a-EI “a ”a a ”g In “in: In "8:: l. .58. In 5 .o a Baas 5 .o .9 .aa .2 .a .. Ban: 5 .o a :58 FIGURE 23 (Cont’d) 185 TABLE 22 SUMMARY OF ADJECT IVE DESCRIPTORS: PERSONALITY AVERAGE- AVERAGE- OVER~ OVER- WT. MALE WT. FEMALE WT. MALE WT.FEMALE CANDIDATE: A ~ B - .C D Q. 17: PERSONALITY: SO Adj.’s 54 Adj.’s 40 Adj.’s 58 Adj.’s ~POSITIVBS 117 Rap’s 121 Resp’s 81 Resp’s 103 Rmp’s (61.6%) £52496) {46.696) {52.6%}; Q. 17: PERSONALITY: 34 Adj.’s 40 Adj.’s 41 Adj.’s 35 Adj.’s «NEUTRALS: 44 Resp’s 67 pr’s 53 Resp’s 56 Resp’s 123.2%) - 129%) (30.5%) (28.6%) Q. 17: PERSONALITY: 20 Adj.’s 35 Adj.’s 35 Adj.’s 28 Adj.’s «NEGATIVES 29 Resp’s 43 Resp’s 40 Resp’s 37 Rmp’s (15.3%) (18.6%) (23%) (18.9%) I Q. 17: PERSONALITY 104 Adj.’s 129 Adj.’s 116 Adj.’s 121 Adj’s TOTALS: 190 Resp’s 231 pr’s 174 Resp’s 196 Resp’s TABLE 23 SUMMARY OF ADJECI‘IVE DESCRIPTORS: WORK HISTORY Q. 18: WORK HISTORY 28 Adj.’s 35 Adj.’s 27 Adj.’s 35 Adj.’s ~POSITIVES 48 Resp’s 62 Resp's 43 Resp’s 52 Resp’s 127.6%) 130.7%) {27%) (30.6%) Q. 18: WORK HISTORY: 55 Adj.’s 51 Adj.’s 59 Adj.’s 60 Adj.’s «NEUTRALS 107 Resp’s 119 Resp’s 97 Resp’s 100 pr’s (615%) (58.9%.) LGIW Q. 18: WORK HISTORY: 15 Adj.’s 21 Adj.’s l3 Adj.’s 15 Adj.’s ~NEGATIVES: l9 pr’s 21 Resp’s l9 Resp’s 18 Resp’s Q. 18: WORK HISTORY: 98 Adj.’s 107 Adj.’s 99 Adj.’s 110 Adj.’s TOTALS: 174 pr’s 202 Ram’s 159 Resp’s 170 Resp’s 186 Commonalities across 120511125: work history descriptors (Figure 21 , page 181) included the following: Both male candidates were labelled as ”dependable,“ "risk taker,” and "solid." Both females received the descriptors “excellent" and ”strong." Both average—weight candidates were described as "experienced. " Both overweight candidates were desch as “steady. " Unique positive descriptors for Candidate A (averageweight male) included ”acceptable,” ”active,“ “determined," ”efficient,” “helpful“, "positive,” and "useful." Positive comments unique to Candidate B (average-weight female) included “adventurous," ”comprehensive", “consistent,” ”educated,“ ”industrious," "1eademhip,’ "learned”, “outgoing”, “skilled", “strong customer relations,“ and "well-organized." Unique positive descriptors for Candidate C (overweight male) included 'eager,‘ ”independent worker,’ ”knowledgeable," and "steadfast.” Unique may: responses for Candidate D (overweight female) included ”competent,” ”congenial,“ ”diligent,” "energetic,” “expert," “integrity," "intelligent,’ ”loyal,” ”progressive,“ ”promising," “reliable,” “self-confidence,” and "solid.’ Negative descriptors of the candidates’ work history showed a great deal of commonality (see Figure 22, page 182). The negatives most consistently mentioned were 187 that the candidate had an ”inconsistent" or ”erratic“ or "sporadic” work history, and that the candidate had "undemanding, " 'unimpressive,“ or 'uninspiring" work experience. Virtually all descriptors generated across the four candidates related to one or the other of these themes. Question 19 asked subjects to list the candidate’s strengths; question 20 asked for a listing of candidate weaknesses. Responses to each of these questions were transcribed and the comments by raters are listed in Figures 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32. These responses were then reviewed and coded in an attempt to summarize the results obtained and to draw inferences about the pattern of responses across candidates. The large number of comments regarding strengths and weaknesses created a body of data that was difficult to analyze without utilizing some technique to classify and sort the data into meaningful categories. Accordingly, the coding scheme described in Figure 25 was devised and was used to code responses to the ”Strengths” and 'Weaknesses' questions. Each response was coded as to the content area(s) it addressed. Once each response was coded, and summaries created for each candidate, the set of coded responses was collapsed into the following categories: Responses coded CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, and W8 were combined into a W W factor which basically concerns work experiences and abilities. 188 Responses coded FR, 18, MO, PE, and SC were combined into a W W factor which deals with the candidate’s interpersonal relationship abilities (as perceived by raters). AP (Appearance) items were kept separate, since they are of special concern to this analysis. ”Other" responses were also analyzed separately, as were ”No Weaknesses" responses when they appeared. AP: CS: ED: FR: IS: LS: SC: Appearance/Attractiveness: Used if any factor related to appearance or attractiveness was mentioned as a strength or a weakness. Communication Skills: Used if any mention was made of a candidate’s ability to communicate, be articulate, etc. Education: Used if any mention was made of candidate education or training. Friendly/Outgoing. Used if mention was made of candidate friendliness, outgoing nature, etc. Interpersonal Skills. Used if any comments were made regarding the candidate’s interpersonal abilities. Language Skills. Used if any mention was made of the candidate’s ability to speak a second language. : Motivation/Hard worker: Used for any mention of 0TH: PE: motivation, hard work, drive, energy, etc. Other Factors: Used for any comment not classifiable into any other category. Personality Factors: Allocated to any mention of candidate personality (e.g., aggressiveness, shyness, etc.) Self-Confidence: Allocated to any mention of candidate self-confidence. : Travel Experience: Used to code any comment on the candidate's foreign travel experience. : Work Experience: Used to code any mention of work US: history or work experience. Uork Skills: Used to code any mention of candidate skills or abilities. : No weaknesses: Used if specific comment was made that no weaknesses were seen. INCHJRIEZ4 CODING SCHEME FOR STRENGTH/WEAKNESS RESPONSES 189 CANDIDATE A (AVERAGE-WEIGHT MALE): STRENGTHS "Seem language (13) «lie is sotivated and has accouplished such in his education and has a variety of work experience. (H0, ED, till) «Ability to work and attend school. (H0, ED) «Direct and forceful speaker (CS) «A activated pleasant Individual (110, PB) «Travel experience, friendly (TR, PR) «Clear speaking, neat. Has adequate education. The world travel impresses we. (CS, AP, ED, TR) «Diversified work background, bilingual, albitious to work ahead to isprove hisself. (WE,LS, 110) «Experience in foreign culture-second image-ability to work full tile and go to school part tine. (TR: L3: "0) «lie spoke very clearly and used correct English. He was not unattractive. (CS, LP) «Educated, broad business experience. (ED, WE) «Strong educational background. (ED) «Motivated, analytical rind. (in, Oil!) «lie has travel experience, work experience in sales, and speaks a foreign language. (TR, WE, LS) «lie is bilingual, and enjoys travel, has education. (LS, TR, ED) «Good strong counnicator. (CS) «lie is a good commicator. (CS) «lie appeared to be consistent, presented hiIself quite well and had a level of self-confidence. (0TH, LS, sci «Desire to advance. (HO) «He has a variety of background work histories, ability to work and supervise people. His educational background is certainly a strength. lie is self-Iotivated and an independent worker. (W3, 15, ED, no, 0TB) «He has a great deal of experience and education. See-s to couunicate well. (its, ED, CS) «Experience in different types of jobs. (WE) «His experience in a variety of job settings, his travel, and his solid G.P.A. (till, TR, ED) «Hill oonplete task given to his. Hill lake a good ilpression on others. Shove initiative. (om, OH, in) «He has a strong educational backgrormd and has been well traveled, which say have given his the chance to deal with a wide variety of people. (ED, TR, IS) «Scene to enjoy challenge-~flerible«has business-like deleaner (sic). (it), (it'll, iiS) «Good business background. Has worked and experienced a great deal of people. (WE, HS, IS) «Dependable, conpetant (sic), self-Iotivated. (its, US, 110) «His broad general background, attractive looks, poise, educational background, variety of interests. ("3. 11’. SC: 31>: 0m) «Coutmicates well. (CS) «Hard worker, experienced, energenic (sic). (Ito, WE, l0) «ills degrees....(zb) «Clean cut. (AP) «Adapting to activities. (O‘l‘ll) «Record keeping. (85) «Scene like a well-qualified candidate in terns of work history (WE) «Fluency in Spanish: U.S.l. (l3, ED) «Being able to speak another language and be with different types of people.(LS, IS) «Conunication skills, acadeaic accosplishnents. (CS, BB) «ills strengths would be his ability to speak well and articulate his points. (CS) «iiorks hard. (no) «Easy to get along with. (13) FIGURE 25 CANDIDATE A: STRENGTHS 190 CANDIDATE A: STRENGTHS --He is self-confident, well~spoken. (SC, CS) «Interpersonal relations, self activation. (18, H0) «The variety of his experiences. (WE) «He has a varied list of experiences. (WE) «Education. (ED) «Diction«speaks well. (CS) «Articulate. (CS) «Wide range of experiences; well versed in foreign language: clear voice/pleasant voice. (WE, LS, CS) «Travel experience; Spanish for business purposes; anbitious: proper use 0 Englisb.(TR, LS, H0, (‘5) «His ability to speak Spanish. (LS) «Ability to accclplish long-ten goals. (we) «Knowledge of business.(WS) «Well roundedness; able to succeed in various areas of business. (0TH, W5) «He has an ability to speak in front of the canera. His presentation was well organized. (CS, Ul'H) «Personality, education, second language, good presentation skills. (PE, ED, LS, CS) «Hell traveled and educated. (TR, ED) «Educational background, notivated. (ED, H0) «Bilingual, faniliar with other cultures, varied work bistory.(LS, TR, 511‘.) «Being able to keep inventories appropriately. (US) «HBA.(ED) «Works hard, nice video, financial aspects. (H0, 0TH, 0'!!!) «Educational preparation, cultural diversity. (ED, 0TH) «He 101ch Spanish and has seen South Anerica. (LS, TR) «He is bilingual and has a lot of confidence. (1.8, SC) «The fact that he is fluent in Spanish. (18) «Varied background. (01H) «Willingness to try new ideas and concepts. (0TH) CANDIDATE A: Strengths AP: Appearance/Attractiveness (4) CS: Conunication Skills (16) ED: Education (29) TR: Friendly/mitgcing (1) IS: Interpersonal Skills (6) 1.8: Language Skills (16) no: lotivationfflard worker (19) 0TH: Other factors (15) PE: Personality Factors (2) SC: Self-confidence (4) TR: Travel Experience (11) WE: Work Experience (16) RS: Work Skills (8) 147 itews. Cclbining CS, ED, 15, TR, HE, HS into a 'Kncwledge, Skills, lbilities' factor yields 96 itens. (65.3% of total) Corbining FE, IS, 110, PH, SC into a 'Personality/Interpersonal' factor yielnk yields 32 itens. (21.8% of total) 'Other' factors yield 15 itens. (10.2% of total) : "Appearance/Attractiveness“ yields 4 itens. (2.7% of total) FIGURE 25 (Cont’d) 191 CANDIDATE B (AVERAGE-WEIGHT FEMALE): STRENGTHS (4 Respondents made no comments) «Clean neat appearance (AP) «Conunications skills (CS) «Experienced nany things in a short tine (RE) «She has traveled and has experience dealing with other cultures (TR) «The Experience (HE) «Strong 8 self-activated, wants to work scleplace (H0) «High GPA, perseverance (ED, HO) «Her conunication skills (CS) «Ability go out and work in nany different atncsphere's (sic) (WE) «Ability to couunicate with others and take over responsibilities. (CS, 138) «Fluency in Spanish: interests in travel; a decent najor: seal-good work experience. (13. TR. ED, WE) «Hath, couunication (0TH, CS) «The fact that she worked Iany different types of jobs. She has experience in wany different fields. (WE) «She is not afraid of change, and is willing to try new experiences (SC, 0TH) «Initiative to achieve education done well in school (sic) (110, ED) «Fluent in Spanish 8 travel (LS, TR) «knowledge of Spanish, work experience and willing to get naster’s degree (LS, WE, ED) «Goal oriented. Good insicmt toward other cultures. (H0, 0TH) «Cannot deterIine since there was no twc~way conversations. «Languages skills (LS) «Adaptable to different fields, willingness to change (RS, OTB) «Enthusiastic, articulate (bi-lingual) (110, LS) «Her fluency in a foreign language. She is willing to travel. (LS, TR) «Bilingual and unique travel experience (LS, TR) «Experience working w/dif types of people 8 personalities at dif. levels, cultural background, good technicals background. (15, 0TH, RS) «mtgoing, anbiticus, activated (self) (110) «HanageIent a organizational skills, good ccwnunication skills (HS, CS) «Education, work experience, detail work, busy work (ED, WE, 0TH) «Experience dealing with people, travel a language (IS, TR, LS) «She seews to have had nany experience, both in her job and private life to aid in her enploynent (RE) «I believe she is a pe0ple person. (15) «Travel experience and foreign language abilities (TR, LS) «Self-activated: interested in further education (110, ED) «Intelligent (0TH) «Has a willingness to lead (IS) «Interest in Spanish, Central Alerica (15, TR) «kany experiences (RE) «Education (ED) «Had experience as a Ianager; had a variety of experience (RE) «Believes in herself, (working her way through) education (SC, ED) «Job oriented-pleasing appearance (AP) «Experience, personable (HE, 0TH) «She see-s to have a good experience level (RE) «Work background (HE) «Selling self (CS) «Bilingual? Can't really tell. (1.5) «Work 8 travel eXperience (HE, TR) «Her travel experience (TR) «Organization (0TH) FIGURE 26 CANDIDATE B: STRENGTHS 192 CANDIDATE B: STRENGTHS «Varied experiences of out of country opportunity taken (TR) «Conunicationostrong background (CS) «Uses eye contact - plans speech's (sic) (CS) «Fluency in Spanish, MBA (Ls, ED) «Clear 8 concise (CS) «Good eye contact; no stauering: Spanish-fluency; enough woxie to lake a video (CS. L5: 3(3) «Confidence; good conunication skills (SC, CS) «Hanagenent skills, travel history, diversity in experiences (RS, TR, WE) «Work experience (WE) «Education and ability to speak; other languages; drive to continue education even when working (39: L5. H0) «Harnth (PE) «Education, experience (ED, HE) «Leadership ability: straight forwardness; clarity (0TH, 01H, CS) «Hulti-lingual; anti-cultural; good speaker (LS, 0TH, CS) «Past work experience; fluency in foreign language (SE, LS) «Speaking and working with other custoners and enplcyees (CS) «Is trying hard to get a job evidenced by producing a video (110) «Clarity (when speaking): confidence (CS, SC) «Experience, conunication skills (HE, CS) «Being bi-lingual would be an asset (LS) «Outgoing (FR) «Verbal skills (CS) «Able to counnicate-seen knowledgable (CS) «Education, ability to perforn different bussiness tasks (sic) (ED, HS) «Significant combination of experience and knowledge (NH, US) «Hard worker (H0) «Conunication skills (CS) «I think she’d be good/strong w/different cultures (0TH) «Education (ED) «Wants to work; appears responsible (no, 0TH) «Her tenacity in naintaining full tine enploywent during college and her willingness to explore other cultures (110, TR) CANDIDATE B: STRENGTHS AP: Appearance/Attractiveness (2) cs: Conunication Skills (19) ED: Education (13) FE: Friendly/Outgoing (1) IS: Interpersonal Skills (4) LS: Language Skills (17) K1: lotivation/Hard worker (12) 0TH: Other factors (14) PE: Personality Factors (1) SC: Self-confidence (5) TR: Travel Experience (13) WE: work Experience (20) vs: work Skills (7) Cowbining CS, ED, LS, TR, RE, (is into a 'knowledge, Skills, Abilities" factor yields 89 item. (69.5% of 128 total itels) Conbining FR, 15, 110, PH, SC into a 'Personality/Interperscnal' factor yields 23 itens. (18% of 123 total itens) “Othar' (era) mm 14 itels. (10.9% of 128 total itels) 'Appearance' (AP) yieltk 2 itews. (1.6% of 128 total itens) FIGURE 26 (Cont’d) 193 CANDIDATE C (OVERWEIGHT MALE): STRENGTHS (10 Respondents made no comments) «Education (ED) «His diversified working environnent (0TH) «Culturally aware (0TH) «Education, work experience, can speak Spanish (ED, WE, LS) «Possible cross cultural lanaging ability (sic) (W5) «Spanish, good bit experience: coaputer literacy (LS, WE, WS) «Appears to have good coaaunication skills - Displays initiative and good work ethic based on acadeaic and eaplcyaent history (CS, no) «Fluency in Spanish, work experience (LS, WE) «Willing to take risks in getting a job (0TH) «Speaks well, conservative nature (CS, 0TH) «Being bilingual, software capabilities (LS, WS) «Speaks clearly and concisely (CS) «Well traveled: has thought of his future soaewhat (TE, era) «Oral conunications (CS) «Young, wants to work (H0) «Initiative, professionalisa, willing to learn, eager (in) «Good trainer, speaks clearly & aaybe easy to get along with (WS, CS, IS) «Drive (?) (:10) «Has an oral capability that seeas excellent. (CS) «He speaks well and presents hiaself well (clean out: good dresser, etc.) (CS, AP) «Willingness to learn, 6 flexibility to adapt to environaent (work situations) (0TH) «Education (ED) «Coaaunication (CS) «Presents biaself in a professional aanner. Speaks clearly. (CS) «He has had a little experience in a lot of areas. (WE) «Degree, experience (ED, WE) «Confident I articulate (SC, CS) «Strong business backgron (WE) «He aakes a good appearance I scene to have appropriate training I experience (AP, WE) «Language back ground - ability to coaaunicate with 2 languages. Versatile business experience (LS. WK) «C.P.A. shows effort (ED, ID) «Variety of experiences (WE) «Varied work experience neat appearance 8 fit Status Quc (sic) (WE, AP, 0TH) «Travel (TR) «Varied business experiences, knowing a foreign language. (WE, LS) «Knowing Spanish, working for different coapanies (LS, WE) «Self confidence (SC) «I'd have to say off hand that his strengths are aarketing and Ianageaent. (W5) «Ability to work towards a goal. (W0) «Stays with job - dedication - Aabitious - looking ahead - bettering hiaself (0TH, H0) «Has experienced another's culture (TR) «Flexibility (0TH) «Educational 8 professional background, knowledge of foreign language 6 culture (ED: W3: TR: L3) «His consistent eaployaent record is a good indication he’s activated and willing to work. (”0) «Aggressive, organized. (H0, WS) «Business background and experience - Wulti-cultural interest - Age - Physical healthjwellness - independent worker - self activated (WE, WS, AP, 110) «Varied experiences would seen to wake hia a valuable clerk with possible potential for advanceaent (33) FIGURE 27 CANDIDATE C: STRENGTHS 194 CANDIDATE C: STRENGTHS «Spanish experiences - job, travel (LS, TR) «Self Iodivaton (sic) (H0) «Flexible - will attenpt my new areas (0TH) «His knowledge of Spanish and cultures of South Anerica as well as spread sheet knowledge. (LS, W3) «Selfaotivation, organized (E0, WS) «Business background, years of work experience (WE) «His drive to work at the top of his field (n0) «He has had various experiences in the workfield and sore low-level Ianagelent training. He probably would be conscientious but non-innovative (WE, 0TH) «Various prior work skills and education (WE, ED) «Likes to travel, thus if job required it, would be willing - Possesses self-Iotivation and self- direction. (TR, H0) «Conunications skills, confidence, directness. (CS, SC, 0‘!!!) CANDIDATE C: STRENGTHS AP: Appearance/Attractiveness (4) CS: Couunication Skills (ll) ED: Education (7) FR: Friendly/mtgoing (0) IS: Interpersonal Skills (1) LS: Language Skills (10) IO: Wotivation/Hard worker (14) 0TH: Other factors (12) PE: Personality Factors (0) SC: Selficonfidence (3) TR: ll'ravel Experience (6) WE: Work Experience (18) WS: Work Skills (9) Conbining CS, ED, LS, TE, WE, W5 into a "Knowledge, Skills, Abilities' factor yields 61 itels (64.22 of 95 itens). Conbining FR, IS, no, PE, SC into a 'Personality/lnterpersonal' factor yields 18 itels (19% of 95 itens). Other: 12 itens (12.6% of 95). Appearance: 4 itens (4.2% of 95) FIGURE 27 (Cont’d) 195 CANDIDATE D (OVERWEIGHT FEMALE): Strengths (4 Respondents made no comments) «Her responsibility( sic) acceptance, eagerness to learn (HO) «Sense of direction in business related goals - Personable 8 friendly A flexible (“0. PB. FR) «Her past experiences (WE) «Hardworking (HO) «Good Self-Estes], personality, business background (GTE, PE, WE) «Has wide variety of experiences which would be beneficial (WE) «Past experience - willingness to work (WE, l0) «Varied work experiences, fluent in Spanish, educational background (WE, LS, ED) «Organization - Analysis - Task orientation (0TH) «Education, Previous experience (ED, WE) «Conputer literacy, supervisory experience, effective couunicator (WS, WE, CS) «Wants to better her self (110) «Persistence, courage, sense of adventure (W0, 0TH, OPE) «Good experience, EBA, Good Attitude (WE, ED, 0TH) «Work Experience and education (WE, ED) «Perhaps attention to detail, language and organization (0TH, CS) «Self confidence (SC) «Intelligent (0TH) «High educated and lot of experience. (ED, WE) «She is Hardworking and very activated (H0) «She seem to have a swooth flow in regards to Education and Experience. Il'his allows her to be flexible in what direction she needs. (ED, WE) «Being well rounded in the Business world. Knowing other cultures (WS, FR) «She has experience in any areas. (WE) «Experience/Knowledge in finance, wanaging and accounting. Awareness of another mltural. (sic) (“5. TR) «EXperience Abroad, Education (TR, ED) «Seels to denonstrate initiative - Seens very open and willing to try new things. (no, 0!!!) «She has achieved success both in terns of her educational achieve-exits and travel experience. (30. WE) «She appears willing to learn and work her way up through the corporate ladder. (H0) «Educational background, faniliarity with different areas of a business (ED, WE) «Work history and apparent willingness to tackle and accouplisb a variety of tasks. (WE, I10) «Ability to adapt to different people and job requirelent. (IS, WS) «Conunication and interpersonal skills (CS, IS) «See-s to strive on ilproving education In job interests (ED, W0) «Work experience conbined with good education. Seews self confident. (WE, ED, SC) «She has held Ianagelent positions and stayed with her job for longer than average periods. (WE) «Work experience (WE) «Her willingness to work under any circustalase (sic) and achieve her goals (N0) «Commicaticn skills - Interpersonal skills - self-Iotivated (CS, IS, IlO) «Her ability to conunicate. Ianage and be dependent (sic) on. (CS, W8) «Sheconesacrossasbeinganioeperson. Sheseemasthoughshewouldbeeasy togetalongwith. (PE, IS) «Seens confident of herself and has a wide variety of experiences. (SC, WE) «Good focus on future and goals. (0TH) «Her sense of devotion in finding the right job for herself. Motivation! (H0) «Appears to be no-nonsense and nature (0TH) FIGURE 28 CANDIDATE D: STRENGTHS 196 CANDIDATE D: STRENGTHS «hrfikhgwnmasaMm-TmswmwwbwmaMimakaw(an (CS, OTH) «She is fairly articulate, seens confident and self-assured. Has a strong backgroxmd in business (C3. 5C. WE) «Her educational background her travel experience, job diversity, language skills 8 her intellegence(sic) (ED, TR, WE, LS, 0TH) -Intelligence, nature, independent (DEE, 0TH, 0TH) -vEducational experience I work experience (ED, WE) «Knowledge of other culture, IE: South Anerican (TE) -Perserverance(sic) (HO) -Education (ED) --Eoreign Language Skills (LS) -It’s hard to tell Inch of anything free a video. --Sbe has experience in custower relations and has analytical skills. (WE, WS) «I think this person has experienced working in a variety of different businesses and seals well~ rrounded by holding I perforling in nuwerous business areas. (WE) -Acadenic background (ED) -She wants to get ahead in life. (E0) -She is strong (0TH) «I would not wind working for her because she appears controllable. I would like her working for we for the sale reason. (PE) -What strength’s -Educaticn (ED) -llpressive, but needs to sell the: enthusiasticly(sic) (CS) «Experience and desire to inprove herself (WE, HO) -.Callness-Ieasured speech (CS) --Bi-Lingual, not afraid of new environts(sic) (LS, 0TH) -Foreign Language/Cowputer proficiency.(LS, WS) -Strong Business background (OTH) -vaility to analyze sowe supervisory skills (W8) CANDIDATE D: STRENGTHS AP: Appearance/Attractiveness (0) CS: Conunication Skills (9) m: Education (16) PH: Friendly/Outgoing (I) IS: Interpersonal Skills (4) 1.3: Language Skills (5) no: lotivation/Hard worker (17) 0TH: other factors (18) PE: Personality Factors (4) SC: Selfwonfidence (4) TR: Travel Experience (5) WE: Work Experience (25) WS: Work Skills (8) Conbining cc, to, L8, vs, vs, vs (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities) yields 68 itews. (58.6% of 116 total itens) Conbining Pk, IS, no, PE, SC (Personality/Interpersonal) yields 30 itels. (25.9% of 116 total itens) Other yields 18 items (15.5%): Appearance yielch 0. FIGURE 28 (Cont’d) 197 CANDIDATE A (AVERAGEeWEIGHT MALE): WEAKNESSES «Sealed tense (15) «His tendency to change jobs frequently and since the job requires inediate filling, Leslie’s suner graduation fro: school way he a problew. (W0) «Dedication to one job. (140) «Would lake a better ilpression speaking extenporaneously instead of reading.(CS) «Did not place one cards close enough to lens. Had to look away to read then. Dishevled (sic) look. (CS, AP) «Hot confident, seening willing but not able, hesitant. (SC, WS,IS) «Ho suitcoat projected a faniliar type feeling. Only worked in IL. (AP, WE) «Speaks in aono-tone, appeared very 'stiff.‘ (CS, AP) «Short work history: Don't know what accorplishnents were in specific jobs. (WE, WS) «He didn’t keep eye contact with the calera«kept looking away. Shirt looked disheveled«should have worn a coat. Didn't vary tone of voice. (CS, AP, (3) «Has loved too my tires (job hopped). (WE) «W0 steady job experience. (WE) «Doesn't appear to be personable enough for a sales position. (IS) «I feel he is not charisnatic or extroverted enough to be in sales. However, with proper training and learning to he wore relaxed he could be successful. (PE, 18) «Has loved in and out of jobs alot (sic). (WE) «Only spent less than 2 years at each job-how long will he stay at this one? (HO) «He seews sonewhat tinid (sic) or shy. (PE) «His head and rest of body did not go together. Unless he was a quadriplegic or his face put to a card board-«die had the worst body language I’ve ever seen indicating extrewe nervousness etc...... Also-achanges jobs a lot. (AP, WE) «Wot seasoned (experienced) that web. (WE) «Do not know of any. (NW) «Do not see any. (WW) «He doesn't stick to one job for long. (HO) «The fact that he changed jobs frequently (four jobs in six years). (up) «Does not appear to be a leader. Sowewhat soft. Cares too Inch about what others think. (WS, PE, PE) «His video seened a bit too rehearsed. He didn't give any chance for the viewer to see sole personality. (CS) «Uncolorful«prograned like personality. (PE) «Poor personal relationship skills (IS) «Could he wore enthusiastic; has not given any indication of problel he helped solve on the job. I would ask for such info. in an interview. Has not given reasons for job changes. I would want wore info. on this. (HO, vs, vs) «Lacks enthteiasl-doesn’t sell himself well. (HO, CS) «lo hulor: could have been wore personable. (CS, IS) «One-to-one conversations. ( CS) «Eye contact when speaking. (CS) «Short duration of sad! job. (WE) «Switching jobs so often: not a higher G.P.A. (WE, ED) «His weaknesses would probably be in appearance in ability to present hinself. (AP) «Kariswa (sic) (PE) «He scene to have perfcrled in a amber of areas technically yet nay lack sows necessary 'people' skills. W (yet that way have been due to cue cards--if so ignore this connect). (IS, CS) «deeds lore enthusiasm (HO) «He’s not very assertive or creative or outgoing. (no, 0TH, FR) FIGURE 29 CANDIDATE A: WEAKNESSES 198 CANDIDATE A: WEAKNESSES «Lack of eye contact. (CS) «Nothing specific stamb out. (HW) «It looks like he has gone fror one job to another. Io direction? (WE, H0) «He seem kind of plastic.(PH) «Linited work experience. (WE) «Concerned about self esteel«inconsistent eye contact with camera/video. (PH, CS) «Eye contact on video was distracting; very stiff, except for a few sniles. (CS, AP) «Bye contact; why isn’t he using Spanish in business? Social experiences«interests seen solitary. Computer background? (CS, HS, 0TH, NH) «His appearence (sic) is sloppy and his presentation repetive (sic). (AP, CS) «No real personality displayed in conunication. (PH) «His presentation is dull and boring. (CS) «Personal appeal, enthusiasm (OH, HO) «Shifting eyes-looking at one card? (CS) «Inconsistent enploylent. Does not seen to know what he wants (no carreer track). (sic) (WE, 0TH) «Honaggressive (sic), unprofessional. (PH, HS) «Hone detectable. (NW) «Cores across as stilted, reserved. (CS, PH) «Hot dynalic. (PH) «Lack of experience. (RH) «Lack of enthusiaSI, lack of Ianagerial experience. (no, WE) «Neutral presentation. (CS) «Bye contact with canera is ineffective, the shift to his right. lo hand or body language skills. Does not stand or sit straight or tall. (CS, CS, CS) «He has changed jobs too frequently. (NH) «He doesn’t seen to be a very stable ewployee-«he has changed jobs too often. He doesn't seen to know what he wants to do. (H0, HE) «Lack of enthusiasa. (H0) «Inattentiveness to detail and general untideness (sic) in appearance and presentation. (0TH, AP) CANDIDATE A, WEAKNESSES AP: Appearance/Attractiveness (9) CS: Conunication Skills (23) ED: Education (1) FR: Friendly/Outgoing (1) IS: Interpersonal Skills (7) IS: Language Skills (0) H0: Ilotivation/Hard worker (14) IN: Ilo Weaknesses (I) 0TH: Other factors (5) PH: Personality Factors (12) SC: Self-confidence (1) TR: Travel Hrperience (0) RH: work Experience (18) NS: (for): Skills (6) Conbininq CS, HI), LS, TR, 678, RS into a “Knowledge, Skills, Abilities' factor yields ‘8 itels. (47.5% of total) Coabining PR, Is, no, PB, SC into a 'Personality/Interpersonal' factor yields yields 35 itens. (3L7: of total) 'Other' factors yield 5 itels. (5% of total) AP: I'Appearance/Attractiveness“ yields 9 itels. (8.9% of total) W: “Ho Weaknesses' yields t itels. (4% of total) FIGURE 29 (Cont’d) 199 CANDIDATE B (AVERAGE-WEIGHT FEMALE): WEAKNESSES (3 Respondents had no comments) «Lack of self confidence (SC) «Appears dognatic (PE) «She doesn’t seen to project nuch of a personality. (PH) «Not being or showing relaxed confterable feeling body language was closed. (sic) (CS) «Maybe to (sic) serious not enough character shown in the tape. (PH) «Lack of work experience which is focused on a particular career path, lacks denonstrated leadership abilities. (HE, 918) «Hayhe her ability to give orders or take control of a situation (HS) «lot enough infornation (NW) «Not enough leadership positions as far as nanagenent (WI) «The fact that she hasn’t stayed a long tine in any of her jobs. She has been job hopping for the past few years. (NH) «Needs to express nore enthusian and energy (M0) «lo knowledge of ny conpany stated (0TH) «Didn’t show elation, nervous (CS) «Her weaknesses are that she has studied in a general area and not on any specifics. For instance instead of general business she night have studied sonething specific like narketing. (ED) «Thepartthatstrucknethenost inboththetapeandtheresmewastheseveral johsshehadina snail period of tine. Her jobs have all been only 1-2 years in length and then she spent a year traveling. I would question her ability to be a long tern enployee. I'd hate spending a lot of resources training her and then have her leave. (H0, HE) «Inpatient, lack of direction (PH, H0) «Has junped fron job to job. (UH) «She doesn't sound decisive or connanding enough to becone a leader of others. She appears to be nore for self notivation than for loyalty to the fin. (PH, ID) «Changing jobs too often (WE) «Needs to be nore relaxed (PH) «I'oo rehearsed as to what she is saying; inflexible. (CS: PH) «Didn’t nention teanwork or interpersonal skills; didn't say what her career objective is or what she could do for prospective enployer (IS, no) «Confidence, willpower (SC, HO) «needs nore professional dress, snile nore (AP, PH) «She needs nore vitality. (PE) «Did not present herself as a professional (0TH) «Does not appear enthusiastic about positions held in past, or tell how experiences (sic) (HO. WE) «She has noved around? a lot in her work experience. (UH) «noved around a lot to different jobs (W8) «Job hopping (UH) «Itininal eye contact «too nonotone (CS) «Hot nuch pizzazz. (O'I'H) «Didn’t keep a job for very long (WE) «Work experience (WI) «Too average ~ needs spark/charisna (PE) «Appearance, none-tone voice (AP, CS) «Just told what could be read on her resune - Did not sell herself (0TH) «She seened to avoid eye contact with the canera (CS) «Speaks too fast (CS) «Can’t tell fron info given. «No zip. (0111) «She certainly doesn’t display enthusiasn when she speaks. (CS) «Length of stay at variets positions held (UH) «Very short periods of tine at one job (RH) FIGURE 30 CANDIDATE B: WEAKNESSES CANDIDATE B: WEAKNESSES «Little facial expression-stiff in public (CS) «Plat affect (0TH) «Moved around too nuch too fast in job narket: unapproachable personality (perception) (WE, PE) «Physical appearance (dress was not appropriate to project inage for job applied for): average vocabulary (resune had a typo): grade point; repetition of college info (AP, CS, ED, CS) «Personahle affect: long tern enploynent; lack of experience working directly with people (PE, HE, IS) «Doesn't appear very professional, diversity can he a weakness or a strength, doesn’t snilei (0TH, on, m) «Passive (OIH) «Short track record in any one position, personal attire and presentation skills for interview (WE, AP, cs.) «Risk taking (era) «Short tern enploynent, only been working 5 years a several different jobs (WE) «Does not stay in any one position nore than a year - I would question that (WE) «Sloppy appearance - does not appear vivacious or energetic (AP, HO) «Hard to say unless interviewed further «In connunicating, this person relies on a script and doa not have good eye contact or voice nodulation. She repeats herself too nuch - not 'to the point'. (CS) «Brief enploynent period at each enployer; wide range of positions - unsure of career goal (job- hopper) (HE) «Perhaps sonewhat rigid (PE) «Sloppy—dressed (AP) «Wardrobe choice (AP) «Has not held one job for any length of tine (WE) «Young, possible lack of experience (WE) «Hunor (0TH) «Change her outfit - talked a little to fast .. was repetitions (AP, CS) «Hot staying at one job for an extensive period of tine, flat tone for expression (HE, CS) «lacks experience in larger organization setting (HE) «Leadership skills (W3) «Hot enough data «She doesn't speak very clearly (CS) «Overall appearance (AP) «needs to loosen up (0TH) «She is not very lively or convincing as a speaker. Her nanners seened stiff. (CS) CANDIDATE B: WEAKNESSES AP: Appearance/Attractiveness (9) CS: Conunication Skills (18) ED: Education (2) ER: Friendly/Outgoing (2) IS: Interpersonal Skills (2) LS: Language Skills (0) HO: lotivation/Hard worker (8) OIH: Other factors (12) PE: Personality Factors (12) SC: Self-confidence (2) IR: Travel Experience (0) WE: Work Experience (24) HS: Work Skills (3) Conbining CS, ED, LS, TR, NH, US into a "Knowledge, Skills, Abilities" factor yields 47 itens. (50% of 94 total itens) Conbining FR, IS, no, PE, SC into a 'Personality/Interpersonal' factor yields 26 itens. (27.7% of 94 total itens.) “Other' (O'IH) yields 12 itens. (12.8% of 94 total itea) 'Appearance' (AP) yields 9 itens. (9.6% of 94 total itens) FIGURE 30 (Cont’d) 201 CANDIDATE C (OVERWEIGHT MALE): WEAKNESSES (9 Respondents made no comments) «Presentation style (CS) «He does present hinself well, lacks character (PH) «work experience shallow (UH) «Has changed jobs several tines. (WE) «Lack of good work experience (HE) «Overweight: not energenites(sic) (AP, HO) «Frequent enpioynent changes within the past five years. Without further investigation the writer is unable to draw any type of conclusion based on this infornation (HE) «Eye contact (CS) «Appears to lack aggressiveness (PE) «The guy is a basket case. He can't decide what he wants to do when he grows up, so he’ll do whatever cones along. leeds direction and to get off caffeine. (OIH, PE) «Needs to be nore assertive (PH) «He's 'Stand-off'ish (IS) «A lack of continuity in his job (HE) «Linited job experience (HE) «Hot a perfectionist - errors in resune - repeated hinself too nuch (HS, CS) «He looked like he was nervots. He noved his eyes a lot. (CS) «rape looks on - S/he mm. The way he cones across - poor posture - no anination - wall paper has nore Pozaz. (sic) (CS) «I can't really say, because we didn't really get to see the real side of bin. (EH) «He seens to have junped fron one job to another in the last few years. (WE) «Does not have extensive training or experience in a specific area. (HE) «Hot connitnent to any job for a long period, has not worked for any prestigious conpanies, or gone to prestigious schools (PH, ED) «His nane (OI'H) «Insufficient nanagenent experience. (WE) «Hoves around to(sic) nuch. (WE) «Hone visible (EH) «Doesn’t show strength or self-confidence (SC) «Lacks stability in career noves (WE) «Presentation skills (CS) «-llone junp out at ne. (int) «to(sic) rigid in his presentation. Poor novenent. Ho suit jacket (CS, AP) «Looking confortable while talking (CS) «Conunication . lot looking you in the eye.(CS) «Seened boring - shifted his eyes on the video as if he was unconfortahle - lacked belief in hinself (CS. 5C) «Linited tine working with people (HE) «Each job experience was too short terned (HE) «lo personality (PE) «Lack of selling related job experience (WE) «I’d like to see nore finance background. (ED) «Rust becone nore personable.(PE) «Dynanics of personality don’t cone through. (PE) «would wonder about work history - why yearly change? (“8) «Poor interpersonal skills (IS) «Appears to have switched occupations on frequent basis (WE) «His body language in the video. (CS) «Marketing experience, developnent of advertizing(sic) (WE) «Lack of supervisory experience - little experience with nanagenent of others. Has been nainly in lower-level positions prior. (RE) «Does not give the inpression of strength. Hone of his experience was lwten. (0T5. in?) FIGURE 31 CANDIDATE C: WEAKNESSES 202 CANDIDATE C: WEAKNESSES «Speaking skills - I wonder why he stayed in a job for only a year a noved on. (C5, RE) «Doesn’t stick with a job for any length of tire (HE) «Conunication presentation skills, organizational forlat for good resume presentation needs to decide what he wants in life and set goals. (CS, 0TH) «Creativity, sense of direction (0TH, 0TH) «Interpersonal skills, personality (IS, PE) «Ho stated career objective. What are his goals? what does he bring in terns of skills? 'l'oo "beige" - no pizza: or destinetion(sic). Does me: equal his GPA & almae affiliations, or is there sale identify, too. (sic) (0TH, PB) «mswmumm(w) «There's nothing outstanding to set his apart fro- other applicants for the job. (OTB) «He never showed expression in the video. why did he leave each job? (01H) «lot enough experience in a supervisory role. (HE) «Dullness, "colpany Ian" inage, uninspiring. (0TH) CANDIDATE C: WEAKNESSES AP: Appearance/Attractiveness (3) CS: Conunication Skills (13) ED: Education (2) FR: Friendly/Outgoing (0) IS: Interpersonal Skills (3) LS: Language Skills (0) M0: Hotivation/Hard worker (1) 0TH: Other factors (10) PE: Personality Factors (9) SC: Self-confidence (2) TH: Travel HXperience (0) WE: Work Experience (23) HS: work Skills (1) aw: no Weaknesses (3) Corbining CS, ED, LS, TR, 81!, vs into a “Knowledge, Skills, Abilities' factor yields 39 itels (55.7% of 70 total itels). Conbining IR, IS, no, PH, SC into a 'Personality/Interpersonal' factor yields 15 itels (21.4% of 70 itens). Other: 10 itels (14.3% of 70). Appearance: 3 ness (4.3% of 70) Ho Uealmesses: 3Itens (4.3% of 70) FIGURE 31 (Cont’d) 203 CANDIDATE D (OVERWEIGHT FEMALE): WEAKNESSES (7 Respondents made no comments) «Not enough experience (WE) «Perhaps not as confident as needed for high risk job style (SC) «Hay not like to work alone, seens to enjoy people. (918, IS) «Needs lore assertive and cone across as wore creative, independent and activated. (sic) (PH, 0TH, HO) «Concern over 4 enploylents in 6 yrs. Did not appear dynanic. (HE, PE) «Lack of creativity, inability to provide exalples of contributions Iade in her Ianagerial capacity. (073, WE) «Did not go into why she thought she would qualify, for the job or capitalize on her strong areas. (CS) «Appearance - heavy, appeared casually dressed & leaned on the table. (AP) «Lack of experience related to jobs being offered or job positions available. (WE) «Lack of connunications skills (CS) «Ho Iajor weaknesses (AW) «Too rigid on tape (0TH) «Nervous before canera. lot concerned with larger picture (CS) «Speaks in nonotone, boring (CS) «Her work experience lacks direction it is too diversified Her video tape was repetitive a failed to have a section for work experience. It was just thrown in w/education. (HR, CS) «Too rigid and unfriendly. (PH, FR) «Her people skill are (sic) low (IS) «Nothing (accorplishwents or experiences) stands out A grabs you. She does not narket herself well. (CS) «Changes jobs too frequently (WE) «She does not stay with one coapany long. She will probably leave the colpany within five years. (HE) «Her education and experience seen strong, but her weight could negatively influence prospective ewployers. (AP) «Subnissive appearance /stature (AP) «Weak spokesperson and appearance (CS, AP) «She isn’t overly outgoing howaver she way be nuch different in person (FR) «Lack of a clear goal in worklife (UIH) «Possibly ability to get along with others or to take directives. (IS, 713) «back of evidence of conitnent to an organization. (01?!) «Conunication lacks enthusiasl (CS) «Lack of corporate experience. (WE) «She does not appear to be energetic or articulate. Her speaking is choppy and she utilizes no gestures or eye contact that could wake her see: lore dynanic and personable (H0, CS) «Hot nuch enthusiasn in presenting herself. (HO) «work history not enough tile at one place. (018) «Lack of Leadership Experience (NH) «Seals a little "uneasy“. (0TH) «She does not hae(sic) a dynanic personality. She does not appear to be a self confident person. (pr, so) «I have seen nothing I would describe as a Weakness'. (NW) «I dont (sic) know. (EH) «Hot very outgoing (HR) «Does not stay at one job for to (sic) long. She talks in only one tone and people do not listening (sic) to that! (WE, CS) «Appears to be nnaggresive (sic) and lacks leadership skills. (PH, HS) «I dont think she has enough self~lotivation (k0) «Hatches cue cards rather than talking directly to canera - work history showing a pattern of changing 50135 (CS. WE) FIGURE 32 CANDIDATE D: WEAKNESSES 204 CANDIDATE D: wsnmssns «Lack of eye contact lacks confidence in herself, her weight naybe. General appearance needs working on. (CS, SC, AP) «Bland personality (PE) «Interpersonal skills-especially body language (ie: eye contact) (IS, CS) «Elploywent history although diverse indicates this applicant changes jobs frequently, and does not appear to be loving upward. (WE) «Lack of confidence (SC) «On job experience (sic) «Lack of Experience in the work force. (WE) «Appearances, needs to know script better (AP, CS) «Posture and body language could be inproved in video (CS) «She speaks in a dull way and does not seen very confident. She is not soleone who would seen to lake a lasting inpression. (CS, SC, O'l'H) «Structured background, night he used to being supervisor, - unsuitable for lower positions. (WE, H5) «(to personality. (PE) «Look to personality traits (PE) «Hone (HE) «Does not appear to be a leader. (HS) «Focused and aggressive (PE) «Her sloppy, overweight appearance. (AP) «Lack expression (CS) «Over qualified for analyst and unnotivated for nanagenent trainee. (HO) «Lack of body language (CS) «Lack of esteen (SC) «Lack of color in personality. (PE) «Changing jobs frequently (WE) «Lack of Decision waking experience - Needs better connunicating skills (WE, CS) CAND. D, WEAKNESSES: CODING RESULTS: AP: Appearance/Attractiveness (7) CS: Conunication Skills (19) ED: Education (0) ER: Friendly/Outgoing (3) IS: Interpersonal Skills (4) 1.5: Language Skills (0) HO: Hotivation/Hard worker (5) OPE: Other factors (7) PE: Personality Factors (10) SC: Self-confidence (6) TH: Travel Experience (0) EH: work Experience (17) HS: Work Skills (5) EH: Ho Eeaknases (4) Conbining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, ES (Knowledge/Ski113/Abilities factor) yields a total of 41 itens (47.1% of 87 items). Colbining PE, IS, NO, PE, SC (Personality/Interpersonal factor) yields a total of 28 itens (32.1% of 87 itens). Appearance yields 7 item (8.1%): Other yields 7 itens (8.12). Ho weaknesses yields 4 itens (4.6%). FIGURE 32 (Cont’d) 205 TABLE 24 SUMMARY OF CANDIDATES’ STRENGTHS MALE .52 61 items (64.2%) 18 items (19%) 12 items (12.6%) 95 items OVERWEIGHT OVERWEIGHT FEMALE .12 68 items (58.6%) 18 items (15.5%) 116 items SUMMARY OF CANDIDATES’ WEAKNESSES 39 items (55.7%) 15 items (21.4%) 10 items (14.3%) 41 items (47.1%) 28 items (32.1 %) AVERAGE- AVERAGE- WT. MALE WT. FEMALE W... A... B. «KNOWLEDGE! 96 items 89 items SKILLS (65.3%) (69.5%) ABILITIES «PERSONALITY/ 32 items 23 items INTERPERSONAL (21.8%) (18%) «OTHER 15 items 14 items (10.2%) (10.9%) «APPEARANCE 4 items 2 items (2.7%) (1.6%) TOTALS 147 items 128 items TABLE 25 «KNOWLEDGE/ 48 items 47 items $101.le (47 5%) (50%) ABILITIES «PERSONALITY/ 35 items 26 items INTERPERSONAL (34.7 %) (27 .7 %) «OTHER 5 items 12 items (5%) (12.8%) «APPEARANCE: 9 items 9 items (8.9%) (9.6%) «NO 4 items 0 WEAKNESSES (4%) TOTALS 101 items 94 items 206 The designations of W versus W W in the comments regarding candidate strengths and weaknesses are important because raters received relatively few cues about the former issues. There is significant employment-related information available about the candidate, but relatively limited information was provided about the person’s interpersonal skills or personality. Given that, it would seem reasonable to assume that personality or interpersonal skills-related comments are perhaps better indicators of the projection of prejudice by raters. The fact that no candidate generated a higher proportion of personality-related comments would indicate convergence with the study’s other findings: i.e., there apparently were few differences in the perceptions of candidates across the experimental conditions. Tables 24 and 25 summarize candidates’ strengths and weaknesses by category. In an analysis of candidate strengths, paired comparisons within each category indicated that the proportions of respondents who made comments regarding candidates 'Knowledge, Skills and Abilities” as strengths did not significantly differ across conditions (comparing B to D, the largest gap, 2 = 1.82, not significant at p < .05). There were also no significant differences across proportions in the categories of ”Personality/Interpersonal skills” (comparing across B and D, 2 = 1.49, not significant at p < .05), and "other" (comparing A to D, the largest gap, 2 = 1.29, not significant at p < .05). In the category of ”appearance, " Candidate C (overweight male) was significantly more likely to have appearance mentioned as a strength than was Candidate D (overweight female) 207 (z = 2.10, significant at p < .05). The difference between candidates C and D was the only significant difference across this category (e.g., comparing A to D, z = 1.8, not significant at p < .05). However, it is interesting to note that each of the candidates received at least two mentions of appearance as a ”strength“ except for candidate D (overweight female). And when appearance was mentioned as a weakness, the other candidates had their clothing mentioned, whereas candidate D had several mentions of W as a weakness. These comments reinforce the findings, discussed earlier, that women are more likely to be perceived as overweight and apparently are also viewed more negatively for it (see pages 46—48). Among the W5 listed for each candidate, the ”other” category conflins the remarks which are unique to each candidate. For candidate A (the average-weight male), the unique strengths listed include: “analytical mind," “appeared to be consistent} “...an independent worker," ”will complete task given to him, will make a good impression on others,” ”flexible,“ “variety of interests,” ”adapting to activities,” "his presentation was well organized,” "nice video, financial aspects,“ "cultural diversity,“ "varied background," and “willingness to try new ideas and concepts." For candidate B (averageweight female), unique strengths mentioned were: ”math [skills]," ”...is willing to try new experiences,” ”good insight toward other cultures," “willingness to change,” 'cultural background," ”busy work," “intelligent,“ "personable,” ”organization,” ”leadership ability, straight-forwardness,” 'I drink she’d be good/strong with different cultures," and ”appears responsible." 208 Unique comments regarding Candidate C’s (overweight male) strengths included: "his diversified working environment,” ”willing to take risks in getting a job,‘ “conservative nature," “has thought of his future somewhat,“ “willingness to learn and flexibility to adapt to environment (works situations)," ”fit Status Quo (sic)," “stays with job« dedication," ”flexibility,“ "flexible«will attempt many new areas," "...he probably would be conscientious but non—innovative,” and "directness. " Finally, for candidate D (overweight female), unique comments regarding her mm were: "organization—«analysis«task orientation, " " good self-esteem, " ”courage, sense of adventure," " good attitude,” ”perhaps attention to detail,‘ “intelligent,” “seems very open and willing to try new things," ”good focus on future and goals,” "appears to be no—nonsense and mature," “the scene was happy and interjected (sic)," 'intellegence (sic)," "her intelligence," 'intelligence, mature, independent," "she is strong,“ “not afraid of new environts (sic), " and ”strong business background. " Assessing relative proportions of candidate weaknesses cited, in the category of W there were no significant differences across the candidates (comparing Candidate C to Candidate D, the largest gap, 2 = 1.08, not significant at p < .05). In the category of W” factors, there were no significant differences across the candidates. There was a trend toward Candidate A (average—weight male) being more likely to be ascrrbed WW weaknesses than Candidate C (overweight male) (2 r: 1.9, p < .06), but this value did 209 not reach conventional significance levels. There was a significant difference between the proportion of responses for candidate A (average-weight male) versus candidate C (overweight male) in the “other“ category (2: -2.35, significant at p < .05). The comments for candidate A in the ”other" category include ”not creative, " ”personal appeal," "interests seem solitary,‘ and 'inattentiveness to detail." Candidate A (average- weight male) was also significantly less likely than Candidate B (average-weight female) to be ascribed weaknesses in the ”other" category (2 = 1.95, p < .05). Candidate A, however, was not more likely than Candidate D (overweight female) to be ascribed weaknesses in this category (2 = .87, not significant at p < .05). “Other” category comments for Candidate B (average—weight female) included: "no knowledge of my company stated,“ “did not present herself as a professional, " "not much pizzazz (sic),' “just told what could be read on her resume-did not sell herself,“ “no zip,” ”flat affect,“ “doesn’t appear very profemional, diversity can be a weakness or a strength,‘ “risk taking,” ”humor," and ”needs to loosen up.‘ Comments in the "other“ category for Candidate C (overweight male) included “This guy is a basket case. He can’t decide what he wants to do when he grows up, so he’ll do whatever comes along.“ One respondent indicated "his name” was a weakness. Other comments included “does not give the impression of strength," "needs to decide what he wants in life and set gods,” “creativity, sense of direction” (mentioned in the weaknesses category), “no stated career objective,“ "why did he leave each job?", 210 ”there’s nothing outstanding to set him apart from other applicants for the job,” and “dullness, 'company man’ image, uninspiring." Comments in the “other“ category for Candidate D (overweight female) included ”needs...(to) come across more creative," ”lack of creativity," "too rigid on tape,” “lack of a clear goal in work life,” “lack of evidence of commitment to an organization,“ "seems a little ’uneasy’,’ and 'She is not someone who would seem to make a lasting impression." With the exception of the comments regarding creativity, there is little commonality across these two categories and so the reasons for the difference are not readily interpretable. 8 I B . l B I l C] . In addition to their responses to the question, ”Which position (if any) would you recommend that Leslie Anderson be hired into?", raters were also asked to explain why they made that choice. The hiring choices and rationales for the choices made are provided, by candidate, in Figures 37, 38, 39 and 40, contained in, respectively, Appendices E, F, G and H. These findings are then summarized in Tables 26, 27, 28 and 29. Some general conclusions may be drawn regarding the subjects’ comments regarding the assignment of candidates to jobs: First, respondents who assigned the candidate to the W position were much more likely to justify this choice by referring to the candidate’s skills and abilities for thejob. There was very little likelihood that they would in factuse any other 211 criterion than W or W factors in their rationales. Many of the comments indicated the candidate’s travel eXpen'ence, work experience and education as being key reasons for assignment to this job. Second, those respondents who assigned the candidate to the W position were also very likely to use the person’s W as justification for the hiring decision. Wm factors were less likely to be offered as justification in this job category than in the preceding one. Commonly mentioned as reasons for placing the candidate in this position were the candidate’s travel emerienee, sales experience, and communication skills. Third, those subjects who assigned the candidate to the WW Analyst position were in most cases more likely to utilize perceptions of the candidate’s personality as factors in their explanations. This does not hold true for candidate B (average-weight female), however, where fewer WW explanations were offered. In all other conditions, subjects were about equally likely to give Emmality factors as reasons for selection as they were likely to use Knmledaetskillslamlities cxnlmfiom- For Candidate D (overweight female), who was the candidate most likely to be offered the WWW job, comments indicated that subjects perceived her as someone who would prefer to work independently and who lacked the aggressiveness or motivation necessary to succeed as a salesperson. Comments also indicatedaperceptionthatshepossessedthetypeofanalyticalskills demandedinthe MW job. 212 In the W category, a number of responses indicated that the candidate was perceived as having a work history indicative of unreliability, or as being unaggressive or unmotivated. For candidate B (average-weight female), the candidate who was significantly more likely to be refused a job, comments indicated that respondents either perceived her as lacking ambition or stability of employment history, or they stated that they lacked sufficient information to make a hiring decision, e.g., “Don’t know enough," or 'Can’t tell from only the video and resume.“ Tables 26, 27, 28 and 29 on pages 213 and 214 summarize the rationales provided for hiring choices, by job and by candidate and by type of rationale provided. 2 l 3 TABLE 26 ”JOB HIRE AND WHY“ RESPONSE SUMMARY JOB CHOICE: “WOULD NOT HIRE" CANDIDATE?” A B C i)" R’NOWEEOOETWMS“W” ‘“’"“‘§"““‘"”“ 0 *1 ‘ ”WW SKILLS! (43%) (35%) (10%) ABILIIIES. 1 -1--- w PERSONALITY/ 5 10 4 5 INTERPERS’L (36%) (39%) (57%) (50%) W ”OTHER” 1 7 3 3 FACTORS (7%) (27%) (43%) (30%) APPEARANCE 2‘ o 0 1 FACTORS (14%) (10%) TOTAL 14 26 i 7‘ 10 COMMENTS TABLE 27 ”JOB HIRE AND WHY" RESPONSE SUMMARY JOB TITLE: “HUMAN RESOURCES BENEFITS ANALYST“ CANDIDATE: ‘ A i B ' c D KNOWLEDGE/ 12 13 7 ' 20 SKILLS! (48%) (57%) (37%) (46%) ABILITIES. . PERSONALITY/ 8 7 13 10 lNTERPERSONAL (48%) (15%) (47%) (41%) EACIQRS _ “OTHER“ 0 3 3 6 FACTORS (13%) (16%) (14%) APPEARANCE 1 2 0 o FACTORS (4%) (9%) TOTAL 25 ’ 23 ' 197 44 COMMENTS 214 TABLE 28 "JOB HIRE AND WHY” RESPONSE SUMMARY JOB TITLE: ”SALES REPRESENTATIVE" CANDIDATE: A B C D KNOWLEDGE/ 54 38 33 41 SKILLS/ (82%) (83%) (59%) (75%) ABILITIES. , PERSONALrTY/ 8 7 13 10 INTERPERSONAL (12%) (15%) (23%) (18%) EACIQBS - ”OTHER" 2 1 9 3 FACTORS (3%) (2%) (16%) (6%) APPEARANCE 2 o 1 ‘ 1 FACTORS (3%) (2%) (2 %) TOTAL 66 46 56 55 COMMENTS TABLE 29 "JOB HIRE AND WHY” RESPONSE SUMMARY JOB TITLE: "MANAGEMENT TRAINEE" CANDIDATE: A B C D KNOWLEDGE! 11 31 ‘ 17 17 SKILLS! (65%) (69%) (71%) (68%) PERSONALITY/ 6 10 6 5 lNTERPERSONAL (35%) (22%) (25%) (12%) EACLQBS ”OTHER' 0 3 1 3 FACTORS (6.7%) (4.2%) (12%) ( 1 2 % APPEARANCE o 1 o 0 i FACTORS (2%) TOTAL 17 41 24 25 COMMENTS 215 JOB: WOULD NOT HIRE CANDIDATE A, NH RESPONSES "Knowledge/Skills/Abilities' (Factors ED,CS,LS,TR,WE,WS): 6 items (43% of 14 responses) ”Personality/Interpersonal" (Factors FR, IS ,MO,PE,SC): 5 items (36% of 14 responses) OTHER: 1 response (7% of 14 responses) CANDIDATE B: NH RESPONSES 'KnowledgelSkills/Abilities' (Factors CS,ED,LS,TR,WE,WS): 9 items (34.6% of 26 items) ”Personality/Interpersonal" (Factors FR,IS,MO,PE, SC): 10 items (38.5% of 26 items total) CANDIDATE C: NH RESPONSES: -—Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 0 items. “Combining FR, IS, MO, PE, SC (“Personality/Interpersonal" factor) yields 4 items (57% of 7 items) '. . a a l O . a . ..I p a . .. a “" 1"} ..- I. H u . . N ”0.1.2-1 I'll. \ I. . N CANDIDATE D: NH RESPONSES «Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Sldlls/Abilities factor) yields 1 item (10% of 10 items) ~Combining FR, IS, MO, PE, SC (”Personality/Interpersonal” factor) yields 5 items (50% of 10 items). ' ,- o 7 I u ' -- ".1161 ‘r. .‘u. 10 'l- 0. VI :11 ’ 6 1.0.9.6131: '10, :11 0’17 FIGURE 33 SUMMARY OF RATIONALES FOR JOB CHOICE ”NO HIRE" 216 JOB: HUMAN RESOURCES BENEFITS ANALYST CANDIDATE A: HRB POSITION RESPONSES 'Knowledge/Skills/Abilities' (Factors ED,CS,LS,TR,WE,WS): 12 items (48% of 25 responses) "Personality/lnterpersonal' (Factors FR,IS,MO,PE,SC): 12 items (48% of 25 responses) OTHER: No responses Wm) CANDIDATE B: HRB RESPONSES 'Knowledge/Skills/Abilities' (Factors CS,ED,LS,TR,WE,WS): 13 items (56.5% of 23 items total) ”Personality/Interpersonal” (Factors FR,IS,MO,PE, SC): 5 items (15.2% of 23 items total) WW1 AWW CANDIDATE C: HRB RESPONSES ~Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 7 items (36.8% of 19 items) «Combining FR, IS, MO, PE, SC (”Personality/Interpersonal” factor) yields 9 items (47.4% of 19 items) CANDIDATE D: HRB RESPONSES: «Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/SkillslAbilities factor) yields 20 items (45.5% of 44 items) --Cornbining FR, 18, MO, PE, SC ('Personality/Interpersonal' factor) yields 18 items (40. 9% of 44 items). FIGURE 34 SUMMARY OF RATIONALES FOR JOB CHOICE ”HUMAN RESOURCES BENEFITS ANALYST" 217 JOB: SALES REPRESENTATIVE CANDIDATE A: SR RESPONSES "Knowledge/Skills/Abilities' (Factors ED,CS,LS,TR,WE,WS): 54 items (82% of 66 responses) "Personality/Interpersonal' (Factors FR, IS ,MO,PE,SC): 8 items (12% of 66 items) OTHER: 2 responses (3% of 66 responses) We CANDIDATE B: SR RESPONSES 'Knowledge/Skills/Abilities" (Factors CS,ED,LS,TR,WE,WS): 38 items (82.6% of 46 items total) ”Personality/Interpersonal“ (Factors FR,IS,MO,PE, SC): 7 items (15.2% of 46 items total) CANDIDATE C: SR RESPONSES «Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 33 items (58.9% of 56 items) «Combining FR, 18, MO, PE, SC (“Personality/Interpersonal” factor) yields 13 items (23.2% of 56 items) . a ' .a . . g P O . o .o . A ‘ '. - 0.11m 1. 1. 11 o u a m..- «11 1 . 11 . .- CANDIDATE D: SR RESPONSES ~Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 41 items (74.5% of 55 items) «Combining FR, IS, MO, PE, SC (”Personality/Interpersonal” factor) yields 10 items (18.2% of 55 items). "'1011161" 1 '11 ' '41 0 1.‘ 11 ' a 111.3411 .‘ ‘ 1. 1,‘ 11 FIGURE 35 SUMMARY OF RATIONALES FOR JOB CHOICE ”SALES REPRESENTATIVE 218 JOB: MANAGEMENT TRAINEE CANDIDATE A: MT RESPONSES 'Knowledge/Skills/Abilities" (Factors ED,CS,LS,TR,WE,WS): 11 items (65% of 17 responses) 'Personality/lnterpersonal' (Factors FR, IS, MO, PE ,SC): 6 items (35% of 17 responses) CANDIDATE B: MT RESPONSES 'Knowledge/Skills/Abilities" (Factors CS,ED,LS,TR,WE,WS): 31 items (68.9% of 45 items total) “Personality/Interpersonal” (Factors FR,IS,MO,PE, SC): 10 items (22.2% of 45 items total) W1 WWW CANDIDATE C: MT RESPONSES «Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 17 items (70.8% of 24) «Combining FR, IS, MO, PE, SC ("Personality/Interpersonal” factor) yields 6 items (25% of 24 items) CANDIDATE D: MT RESPONSES «Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 17 items (68 % of 25 items) «Combining FR, IS, MO, PE, SC ("Personality/Interpersonal" factor) yields 5 items (25% of 25 items). -- ".7161" .‘ 1 ..‘11 L1 . -311 ' error-F111.“ 1'1. I :11 FIGURE 36 SUMMARY OF RATIONALES FOR JOB CHOICE 'MANAGEMENT TRAINEE" 219 Wu The comments described above indicate that respondents did in fact perceive commonalities across the four conditions. Ratings on the semantic differential items Show few significant differences across items, indicating that the candidates were generally perceived in the same way, with the exceptions being that the average-weight male candidate was described as happier and healthier than the other candidates and as more articulate than the female stimuli; and the average—weight candidates were described as stronger than the overweight candidates and more secure than the overweight female stimulus. Raters were more likely to mention the overweight female stimulus’ body weight as a weakness; comments about her appearance included “sloppy, overweight, submissive, heavy; " the overweight male stimulus received only one comment regarding his body weight ('overweight'). All candidates except the overweight female stimulus received several mentions of their appearance as a strength. Examining the comments made by raters: Only the average-weight stimuli were described as "active' and "strong;" only the overweight candidates were described as ”low energy, sluggish, and weak. " Howerver, these comments were made by a relatively small sample of raters, so they should not be interpreted as signifying the sentiments of all raters. Respondents were most likely to use knowledge, skills and abilities factors to justify a hiring recommendation. This tendency was less pronounced for the Human Resources 220 Benefits Analyst position, where raters relied on personality attributions as well as justifications for placement. Justifications for refusals to hire were generally based on the candidate’s perceived unreliability or the respondent’s unwillingness to choose without more information. CHAPTER NINE DISCUSSION 2.1mm The results of this study will be discussed in relation to the theory cited within the analysis. Results are analyzed in light of earlier research findings and possible limitations of the study are discussed. Implications of the present study and recommendations for future research are then discussed. 32 D' . DEB I The findings outlined herein confirm earlier research in that they indicate different responses to physical attributes of males vs. females (Heilman et al., 1979,1985, 1989; Riegelhaupt, 1984). Testing the influence of obesity as a dimension of physical ahractiveness, it was found that raters did not perceive the similarity of body size even when the stimulus individuals were chosen Specifically because of their equivalence on these dimensions. Using videocamera technology to expand the stimulus individuals exactly the same amount produced images which received different ratings of weight (male expanded image mean = 2.27, female expanded wage mean rating = 2.93, where a rating of "2" was average and '3' was overweight). While there is significant research evidence to indicate that the obese are generally viewed negatively (e. g, DeJong, 1980; Worsley, 1981; Vener et al, 1982), a negative bias against the obese did not appear in measures of co-worker or employee desirability, nor in the majority of the descriptions 221 222 provided within the semantic differential scale. Raters responded differently to male and female candidates whose images had been ”expanded“ by the same amount through the use of video camera technology. Indeed, raters viewing the male stimulus responded almost identically in terms of job placement, exhibiting no significant differences in willingness to hire and patterns of job placement. Raters did not exhibit an unwillingness to hire an obese candidate or a tendency to view the obese candidate more negatively, nor didtheypenalizetheobesecandidatesintermsofsalaryofferedforthejob. Raters were, however, significantly more likely to refuse to hire the average-weight female stimulus and were significantly more likely to place the obese female candidate in a less desirable job. Raters’ negative reactions correspond to stimulus gender rather than stimulus attractiveness (as operationalized by weight). 231] .15. .5 Elli] These results are srnprising in that they fail to confirm earlier findings regarding prejudice against the obese (e.g., Vener et al, 1990; Harris and Smith, 1983; Tiggeman and Rothblum, 1988). Given the extent to which other sources (e. g., Harris and Smith, 1983; Homant and Kennedy, 1982; Rothblum, Miller and Garbutt, 1988) have found respondents willing to admit to negative attitudes toward the obese in both social and employmenterelated settings, the fact that the findings of the current study run counter to much of the established literature on Obesity demands an explanation. 223 The results reported here do confirm earlier findings within the general literature on obesity (Rothblum et al., 1988, 1990) which indicate that obesity is differentially evaluated for men than for women. Results in the present study indicated that females were more likely to be identified as overweight at either weight level, with more pejorative comments made about the overweight female’s appearance. These results also lend tentative support to findings within the body of research on physical attractiveness (Heilman et al., 1979, 1985, 1985; Cash, Gillen, and Burns, 1977), which indicate that attractiveness is evaluated differently for male and female stimmi. In the present study raters reacted differently to differing male body configurations than to those of females. Thus there is now evidence to support the contention that it is not only facial attractiveness of men and women that is differentially evaluated, but W as well. If males’ body configurations are evaluated differently than females’ , and if females are generally evaluated more stringently, then females may be affected more severely by appearance-related discrimination than are males. The model of employment decision-making developed by Morrow is relevant to this contention. Morrow (1990) (see Figure 2, page 29) developed a theory of the role of physical attractiveness as a status characteristic in employment decision-making that may explain the present findings. 224 Morrow described physical attractiveness as a status characteristic which influences raters’ perceptions of and responses to applicants. A status characteristic is defined as any characteristic that is used to assign status to individuals across a wide variety of situations. In Morrow’s conceptualization, age, race, gendm and attractiveness are deemed to be status characteristics, since they are used to allocate status to actors even in cases where these characteristics may not be directly relevant. prhysical attractiveness operates as a status characteristic, this may lead to individuals who are more attractive being accorded more deferential behaviors and more positive expectations across a wide variety of settings. In comparison with the unattractive, then, the physically attractive are provided with more chances at success, easier opportunities for success, and ultimately higher levels of self-esteem (Morrow, 1990, p. 64). Conversely, the unattractive are presumed to meet with fewer opportunities to live up to others’ expectations and thus to develop a sense of competency. Morrow contends that sums-characteristics theory would lead to lower-status individuals’ encountering lower expectations and treatment which reflects these expectations. Individual who encounter these circumstances are expected to structure their self-perceptions and behaviors in ways that will be consistent with the (reduced) expectations that they encounter. Ifobesity is more likely to be perceived in females than males (e.g., Rodin et al., 1984; Tiggeman and Rothblum, 1988), i.e., if perceived-ascbese starts at a lower 225 relative weight for females than for males, it would follow that many females perceived as obese are more likely to be deemed lower in status and thus to encounter reduced expectations and less favorable treatment. as compared with males who are at the same relative weight (similar body'mass indices). It would then follow that females (bod) those who are technically—medically obese and those commonly perceived as such) would structure their self-perceptions and actions in ways consistent with the lower expectations they encounter, and thus behave in ways that confirm these lower expectations. In short, differential response to body weight for women versus men could mean that females deemed obese (and therefore unattractive) have fewer opportunities to confront expectations which will enable them to develop a sense of competency. These reduced opportunities to develop a sense of competency may lead obese women (or women who believe they are overweight) to develop less self-confidence and ultimately to present themselves in less effective ways. They may be less assertive, present themselves less effectively, demonstrate fewer social skills, and in general be less desirable candidates for employment-«not because of their perceived or real obesity, but because they are relatively weaker in the skills or qualities that employers deem desirable. An indicator of results indicating that the obese are, in fact, weaker in social skills, is the Miller et al. (1990) study of social interactions over the phone involving obese and nonobese stimuli. Miller, Rothblum, Barbour, Brand and Felicia (1990) asked raters to evaluate the telephone conversations conducted by both obese and nonobese women 226 the women’s contributions to the conversations (but who were not aware of the women’s weights) rated the obese women more negatively in terms of social skills, likability, and attractiveness. The telephone partners of obese women also rated them more negatively. The authors noted that several factors (such as a history of stigmatization and a consequent lack of opportunity to gain social skills) could lead to these results. They recommended further research to replicate and extend these findings. This study is a useful first step in assessing the influence of individual attractiveness upon levels of social skill. Similar types of studies, assessing work-related as well as social skills, would be necessary to confirm the relationships posited by Morrow’s model. Such confirmation would be necessary before considering the development of interventions designed to remedy skill deficiencies. 95E 'lS'°fi [I]!!! If the relationships and hypotheses deriving from Morrow’s (1990) model are accurate, this would have significant practical implications for the lives of women. If appearance leads to being treated differently, and obesity is deemed a less desirable status characteristic, then individuals who are obese will have fewer opportunities to develop a sense of competency or self-efficacy (Morrow, 1990; Umberson and Hughes, 1987). If weight is presumed to be largely determined by genetics and heredity, rather than a characteristic which is within the individual’s control (e.g., Garner and Wooley 1991; Beller, 1977; Fitzgerald, 1981), then obese women may be at greater risk of 227 developing a negative self-perception based on criteria which are both irrelevant to personal goodness and outside their personal control (at least over the long term). Their reduced sense of self-worth may then affect how they present themselves and reduce their ability to achieve objective outcomes over the long term. This reduced sense of self- efficacy might also be expected to create women who are less desirable as employees because they do not demonstrate expected levels of initiative or assurance. And if, as these findings and other reports indicate (e.g., Tiggeman and Rothblum, 1998; Rothblum et al. , 1990), even non—obese women are more likely to view themselves and to be seen as overweight, then such a problem could be widespread - certainly beyond the population of women who are deemed clinically or medically obese. If these hypothesized relationships truly describe women’s opportunities to develop self-confidence and a sense of competency, a great waste of human capital and personal and organizational potential may be occurring. If this could be avoided (by such techniques as attempts to change social attitudes toward the obese and by interventions targeting the self-esteem and selfefiicacy of the obese), the overall level of social and organizational performance might be raised. It is possible that the current videotape, despite its relative brevity, might have been long enough to provide sufficient cues to enable subjects to "set aside” a negative first impression and evaluate the candidate’s credentials more objectively. If true, this 228 would mean that negative initial prejudice might not be captured by the experiment because it was overcome by the provision of additional data (e.g. , resume information, ongoing personality cues, etc.). Prejudice may be a phenomenon which operates in the absence of other, more substantial cues, and would be detected in a setting in which fewer informational cues were provided. If this were proven to be true, it would have significant practical implications for the obese and for employment selection specialists. Situations in which one makes a brief initial evaluation of an individual (such as when a receptionist or human resources staff member takes an incoming application) may be the sorts of circumstances in which prejudice is most likely to operate to an applicant’s detriment. Perhaps training for human resources staffers and for managers in general could alert them to the possibility that they may be making unfair and unwise initial judgments. EEZCI'E'lI IDI' To claim that the study’s overall findings regarding obesity indicate that prejudice against the obese does not exist would be unwarranted. The proliferation in U.S. society of diet centers, weight loss aids, and the ”health and fitness" programs offered in and out of the workplace indicate there has been no sudden turnaround regarding attitudes toward obesity. If anything, current increases in concern about health and fitness might combine to produce more stringent social attitudes toward obesity (Klassen et al., 1991) 229 It may be possible, however, that there is the start of a "turnaround“ in attitudes toward the causes of obesity, which might in turn influence raters’ evaluations. The media has recently begun reporting (e. g. , Lampert, 1993) that obesity may be due at least as much to genetic and hereditary causes as to eating patterns (e. g. , Garner and Wooley, 1991). If respondents in the present study were aware of this gathering evidence, then perhaps their evaluations of the obese candidates did not include the level of negative reaction that is usually found. As Fitzgerald (1981) noted, obesity is generally seen as a ”moral failure;" as such, the individual who is obese is judged negatively for this failure. Take away the stigma of failure and perhaps what is left is merely evaluation of credentials and notation of body configuration, without pejorative judgment. 9“ SH” IEI g l' The relatively limited influence of candidate obesity detected within these findings may be explaimd by the possibility that bias was offset by the level of education which the candidate had demonstrated, or the job and personal skills evidenced by the candidate(dampmvidedmmbjectsabomdmcandidateindicatedcompledmofa Master’s of Business Administration degree, foreign travel and fluency in a foreign language). A high degree of skill may have overcome any initial prejudice on the part of subjects. If this is true, then the potentially damaging effects of undesirable appearance might be offset by higher levels of skull or specialized training (Morrow, 1990). 230 If such were to be proven true, it would offer real hope to the obese. For example, early research results indicated that the obese are less likely to go on to college from high school (Canning and Mayer, 1966); it was also found that obese individuals reported more types of employment discrimination and more attempts to conceal their weight (e. g., through telephone interviews and similar strategies) (Rothblum et al., 1990). The obese individuals in the latter study apparently assumed there was prejudice against the obese and took the steps they felt necessary to protect themselves against it. If it were found that prejudice against the obese is more potent at lower levels of education or skill attainment, it would provide a tentative indicator that investment in training and skills development by the obese might pay off in the workplace. This study is one of a very few to use a visual manipulation of obesity (rather than written stimuli). Many of the works cited herein (e.g., Rothblum et al., 1988; Dipboye et al., 1975; Beehr and Gilmore, 1982; Heilman et al., 1979, 1985) used photographs as the stimulus. Morrow (1990) contends that physical attractiveness which operates in a dynamic environment, with multiple cues. Research which assesses the influence of rater physical attractiveness based solely on a photo stimulus produces a response to a narrow operationalization of physical attractiveness (Morrow, 1990, p. 53). While the present study produced findings that are contrary to results generally obtained regarding physical attractiveness (see citations above), its results may be more valid than those elicited in research using only a written or photographic stimulus. It may be that 231 these latter stimuli elicit a negative response which is not expressed or experienced in the presence of a more realistic stimulus (i.e., a video image). Wmmentlnsnumem The possibility exists that the present instrument failed to capture prejudice because its complexity “distracted” raters and made their preferences less salient. Raters had to respond to over 80 questionnaire items, including demographic items, and the complexity of this task may have lead them to “forget“ their prejudice or to be uncertain of how or where to apply their preferences. Another possible explanation for the results obtained here is that there may have been a social desirability response bias at work. Subjects were told that they were participating in a study of “first impressions;" this description was provided as an explanation for the brevity of the videotape. Perhaps subjects responded to these instructions by being unwilling to report any negative responses, or to take negative action, in an attempt to be as ”fair“ as possible in their evaluation of the candidate. If respondents took to heart the social admonition that one “shouldn’t judge a book (or an individual) by its cover,‘ then they might have suppressed negative responses in a desire to be more cautious in their judgments. However, such an effect might equally be presumed to affect any form of research conducted regarding physical attributes (Morrow, 1990). 232 These results might have failed to capture significant bias against the obese due to the possibility that negative attitudes toward the obese vary by region and are less prevalent in the specific geographic area where the experiment was conducted (a concentration of relatively small towns in the Midwest) than in other parts of the country. It is generally known that many of the respondents live locally and are descended fium immigrant grandparents or great—grandparents. Goldblatt et al’s results (1965) indicated the more recent the immigration of one’s ancestors, the greater the tendency toward obesity. If for that reason there is a higher proportion of obesity extant in the local population, then raters may be more accustomed to the phenomenon of obesity and less judgmental toward it. They would factor it out of their responses and the results obtained would thus not reflect much prejudice toward the obese. Wm It is also possible that prejudice afiects decision-making under conditions of choice rather than evaluation. Each set of raters saw only one candidate; in the real-world sefing, choices are generally made among a set of candidates. It may be that if one asks, ”What do you think of this person?" the response may be more objective than if the question is posed in terms of Person A vs. B vs. C as candidates for employment. Bias may operate when decisions are ambiguous and a choice must be made. 233 9353 . 1.. [01' The present technology was used in an attempt to measure the influence of obesity on rater reactions while still holding other factors (such as vocal tone and intonation, dress, and other aspects of appearance) constant. However, the videocamera modification only permitted an increase in image width which generated a mean assessment of ”somewhat overweight“ by pretest raters. Given the limitations of the technology, it may be that raters did not truly perceive the stimuli as obese. If that were the case, their ratings would not demonstrate prejudice against the obese, not because prejudice does not exist but because it would not have been "triggered" by the video stimulus. If this is true, then subsequent assessment of videotaped stimuli using actors who are in fact obese may generate results more compatible with results of earlier research. 9 9 Il' . E E E l _ The findings summarized herein, coupled with the findings extant in the fields of physical attractiveness and obesity research, create a need for further study regarding several different issues. First, research which continues to make use of videotaped rather than photographic or written stimuli will be critical to develorring a clearer understanding of the various cues that might be expected to influence evaluators’ responses to physical appearance in a context which more closely resembles the multiple cues available to raters in the “real world“ (Morrow, 1990). 234 Second, research should also be conducted which attempts to assess the modean effect of skill or experience level on rater prejudice against the unattractive. Experiments utilizing stimulus individuals with differing levels of skill could be conducted to assess whether prejudice is more pronounced when applicants have lower skill levels or fewer positive conhibutions to make (Morrow, 1990). Third, if Mormw’s model (1990) is correct in predicting reduced opportunities for task mastery by those deficient in status characteristics (e. g., the unattractive, the obese), then further research along the lines of that conducted by Miller et al. (1990) should be conducted. Skill levels of the drese in different task domains could be assessed to determine if they are presented with fewer opportunities for skill development and practice. Interventions designed to remedy any such skill deficits discovered could be evaluated regarding their effectiveness. Fourth, future studies should also assess the self~esteem and self-competence perceptions of obese and nonobese females to determine if there are similarities or differences in their self-perceptions. The finding of significant differences wouldlendsupporttothetheorythatobesityasanaspectofunattractivenessleadsto reduced opportrmities for the development of a sense of mastery or competence. The research findings regarding both skill levels and self—confidence need to be assessed in the light of the gender-based differences which have been highlighted in the literature. It important to know not only how obese women compare to nonobese women 235 on these factors, but also to know how these factors affect males and affect raters’ assessments of both genders in order to understand how desirable outcomes are allocated in cases of employment selection. Finally, future research could analyze whether the findings herein are reflective of attitudes in the wider culture. Much of the literature on physical adractiveness (e.g., Beehr and Gilmore, 1982; Cash et al, 1977; Heilman et al., 1979, 1985) has used samples which are largely Caucasian; the state of knowledge regarding physical attractiveness is thus largely an assessment of how whites view appearance. Occasionally non-white stimulus individuals have been used in research designs (e. g., Maruyama and Mfller, 1980), but it would be desirable to know if attitudes differ across subcultures (African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic~American, etc.), and if so, in what ways. An increased use of diverse stimuli and diverse rater pools is encouraged. Future research on the above topics is thus strongly encouraged, despite the fact that these are complex processes which will require an ongoing stream of research to assess. To explain and describe these judgment processes more fully could have major benefits for many people and to ignore them could be to ignore a significant influence on human and organizational performance. 236 APPENDIX A TABLE 30 SUMMARY OF INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG MEASURES OF COWORKER DESIRABILITY 21317 'ru\131.I3:3t) ESIJIVIIUIIKIllf OIi IP11FIEII(Z()IKIIIEI.£\1FI()TJ£3 IKIVI ()PUC} Ilellflf lVlIEIleIJIiJEIS OI2 (I()Nhf()lll(lill IDIEEBIIlikli eae. "a aaaa . mace. aaa. "a eaaa a aeae. cac. "a eaaa . aaea. ace. "a eeea a Name. eaa. "a ecaa . eeee. aca. "a ecaa a came. aaa. "a eeaa . acme. ”Hoemem cac. "a eeaa . mace. eac. "a eaaa . aaea. ace. "a .aaa . mama. ace. "a acme . acaa. cac. "a Race a ecaa. cea. "a eaaa . ccea. cac. "a eaaa . mace. oeoemem ace. "a aaaa . aaea. cca. "a eeea . acac. aca. “a .eaa . eece. cac. “a eeaa . cac.. eaa. "a eaaa aaaa. \—I cac. "a acaa . aaaa. eca. "a eeaa . aaaa. moemem cac. um .caa . acea. \ cac. "a eaaa . aeea. cac. "a eeaa . acae. ace. "a eaaa . aeaa. cac. "a Ream . acea. coo. um eeaa . caae. aaa. "a eaaa a mace. woemem I! . "a acaa . ecae.e cac. “a eaaa a aaaa. eca. "a ecaa . aaaa. acc. "a Aaaa . aaaa. aea. "a eaaa . caea. ace. "a ecaa . eaae. ace. "a eaaa . eaae. Noamem 99:. um eaaa . aaaa. . "a ecaa . acae.e cac. "a eaaa . aaaa. ace. "a eaaa . eaaa. aaa. u ecaa acee. HO: aaa. acea . cac.. II C; aaa. "a eaaa a aaea. ooamem aaa. "a , aaaa . aaae. eea. "a eaaa . aeaa. . "a eeca . ccaa.e cac. "a eeaa . eeaa. aaa. "a eeca . ecaa. ace. eaaa a eaee. ll Q. ace. "a eaaa . aaea. moemem cce. "a ace. "a Race . eeaa . acae. caea. cac. "a ace. "a eaaa a .eaa . caca. acee. cac. "a cac. "a eeaa . eeaa . aaaa. came. . "a aaa. "a eaaa . .aca . caae.a aeaa. aaa. "a . u .eaa . aaca . caea. acea.e ace. "a cac. "a .eaa . eaaa . eeaa. aaea. aaa. "a cac. "a eaaa . eaea a mace. aaaa. caeaea aoeaea ace. "a cca. "a ae.aaaaa Race . eaaa . ace. eaaa. eaaa. aoeaea cac. "a cac. "a aaaaaaaaa eaaa . eaaa . coca aeae. amen. aoeaea ace. "a cae. "a aeeaaaaaaa Aeaa . eeea a aeaaea eaaa. aaea. aoeaea cee. "a cca. "a mace coca Aeaa . eeaa a ea aeaaa came. acac. caeaaa cac. "e cac. "a maecaeaaa Race . .aaa . ca ace; caea. aaaa. coeaea . "a ace. "a ace gee: .aaa . eaaa . ac ace: aeaa.e coca. aoeaea co: . um . um umxuozou Aaaa . Race . we ace: aeaa. caea.e eoeaaa aoeaee eaeaea m a z m H u H m m m o u z o H a c a m m m o u z o m m c m m n u - l t I I t we-“ monammao czox¢ mzompcgmmm0umunzm 213t3 TABLE 30 (Cont’d) eea. Haaa caee. cca. Heaa aaac. ace. Haaa aaaa. cac. Hece aaac. ace. Heaa aaac. Haaa aaac. ace. Haea aaac. caa. Heaa aaac. coo. um a II was. nm In a \_a um um Heea H aaac. HHonHm eaa. Haca H aaac. II On ace. "a Hcaa H aaac. ace. "a Heaa H aaac. ace. "a Haca H aaac. aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. aaa. u Haaa H aaac. Haaa H aaac.e ll CL. cac. Haaa H aaac. aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. oHonHm eec. Heaa H aaac. H 0.. aaa. Heaa H aaac. H O. aaa. ”a Haaa H aaac. cac. Haaa H aaac. H O.- caa. "a Haaa H aaac. cac. "a Heaa H aaac. aaa. “a Haaa H aaac. . ”a Heaa H aaaa.e ace. "a Heaa H aaac. oonHm ace. “a Haea H aaac. eea. "a Heaa H eaaex aea. "a Heaa H aaac. aca. ”a Heea H eeaa. cac. "a Haaa H aaac. aaa. “ Heaa aaac. ~—r ace. “ Haaa H aaac. ace. ”a Haaa H aaac. . ”a Haaa H aaac.a monHm a .a .ae e aaoea ace. Heaa aaac. ace. Heea aaac. cac. Haaa aaac. cac. Haaa aaac. caa. Haaa aaac. ace. Heaa aaac. aaa. Heaa aaaa. aca. Heaa aaaa. coo. um um um ll 0. u D. um Haaa H eece. HonHm m a z m H u H m H m o u z o H a c H m m m o u z o m m g m m ace. "a Hcaa H aaac. aaa. u Heaa H aaac. aca. "a Heaa H eaae. ace. u Heca H aaac. cac. Haaa H aaac. n D- eca. "a Haaa H aeea. ace. "a Heaa H aaae. eaa. "a Heaa H eeae. cac. "a Haaa H aaac. oonHa cac. Haea eeea. cac. Hcaa aaac. cca. Haaa aaac. aac. Haaa aaae. ace. Hcaa mace. cac. Haea aaac. aec. Haaa Name. cac. Heaa aaac. cac. um II e. um um um um um um um cca. Haaa aaac. cac. Haaa aaac. ace. Haaa aaac. caa. Hcea aaac. ace. Heme aaac. eaa. Hcaa aaac. acc. Haaa aaac. aca. Haaa aaac. coo. II 0.. um um um um um um um um cac. Haaa aaac. cac. Haea aaac. aea. Haaa aaac. ace. Haaa aaac. eea. Haaa aaac. aea. Heaa aaac. eaa. Haaa ecaa. aaa. Hcca aaac. coo. um um an "a um um II 91 um Haea H Name..s monHm mmso ozozg monecqmmm0ummazH Heaa H aaac. onmHm Haea H aaac. monHm ace. u Heme aaac. w acc. "a Heca H eaae. ace. "a Heme H eeee. aee. "a Haaa H aaac. ace. "a Hmaa H aaac. cac. "a Hcaa H came. cca. “a Haaa H aaac. aaa. n Haaa aaac. H eca. "a Haaa H aaac. monHm aaa. "a .mmmmmmazH Haea H aaaaea memo. oHonHm coo. um mmcczmz Haa~ H mm oaoeam «omm. mHonHm aaa. "a emamx-oma Hcea H acaeaaaaa emmm. aHonHm aaa. "a HHm= 3% H manotma echo. mHonHm coo. um mHHme Hmmm H aHamemaama mmmm. NHonHm 8:. "AH .3558 Hemm H vacuum mmmm. HHonHm aaa. "a cacao: Hmmm H new: memo. oHonHm coo. um umHm>HHox Haca H -eeaa oemm. monHm aaa. um maHaaHHHaH Hmmw H scam «mam. monHm HonHm PISIQl Want as Coworker PISIQZ Want to Work For PISIQ3 Want to Supervise PlSlQ4 Would be Good Boss PISlQS Highly Productive PISIQ6 Good Spokesman PISIQ7 Work Indep’ly PISIQB Show Initiative TABLE 30 (Cont’d) INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG QUESTIONS 1-16, p. 3 P131012 .5235 ( 295) P= .000 .5126 ( 295) p: .000 .4274 ( 295) P= .000 .6963 ( 294) p: .000 .5435 ( 294) p: .000 .6423 ( 294) P= .000 .4155 ( 294) P: .000 .5942 ( 295) P= .000 121353 P131013 .6744 ( 295) P= .000 .4659 ( 295) P= .000 .6169 ( 295) P= .000 .5878 ( 294) P= .000 .7369 ( 294) P: .000 .5640 ( 294) P: .000 .6917 ( 294) P: .000 .7463 ( 295) p: .000 P131014 .5587 ( 294) P: .000 .4141 ( 294) P= .000 .4617 ( 294) P= .000 .6165 ( 293) P= .000 .5868 ( 293) P= .000 .5601 ( 293) P= .000 .4953 ( 293) P: .000 .6573 ( 294) P= .000 P131015 .5304 ( 294) = .000 .4663 ( 294) P: .000 .4021 ( 294) = .000 .6334 ( 293) = .000 .5621 ( 293) P: .000 .5303 ( 293) P= .000 .4609 ( 293) P= .000 .6023 ( 294) p: .000 P131016 .6276 ( 295) P= .000 .5106 ( 295) P= .000 .4960 ( 295) P= .000 .6097 ( 294) P: .000 .6151 ( 294) p: .000 .6951 ( 294) P= .000 .4765 ( 294) P= .000 .5969 ( 295) P= .000 2241) TABLE 30 (Cont’d) INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG QUESTIONS 1-16, p. 4 P131012 P131013 P131014 P131015 P131016 P13109 .4869 .7275 .6190 .5290 .5525 Self- ( 294) ( 294) ( 293) ( 293) ( 294) Motivated P= .000 P: .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P131010 .5575 .8028 .6461 .6090 .6028 Hard ( 295) ( 295) ( 294) ( 294) ( 295) Worker P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P: .000 P: .000 P181011 .6884 .5962 .5722 .5708 .7453 Strong Com- ( 294) ( 294) ( 293) ( 293) ( 294) municator P: .000 P: .000 P: .000 P: .000 P: .000 9131012 1.0000 .6046 .6602 .7231 .6961 Leadership ( 295) ( 295) ( 294) ( 294) ( 295) Skills P = .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P131013 .6046 1.0000 .6776 .6040 .6589 Performs ( 295) ( 295) ( 294) ( 294] ( 295) Well P: .000 P= . P= .000 = .000 P: .000 P181014 .6602 .6776 1.0000 .7136 .6035 Effective ( 294) ( 294) ( 294) ( 293] ( 294) Dec.-Haker P: .000 P: .000 = . P: .000 P: .000 P181015 .7231 .6040 .7136 1.0000 .6469 Strong as ( 294) ( 294) ( 293) ( 294) ( 294) MANAGER P: .000 P: .000 P: .000 P: . P: .000 P181016 .6961 .6589 .6035 .6469 1.0000 Strong ( 295] ( 295) ( 294) ( 294) ( 295) INTERPERS’L P: .000 P: .000 P: .000 ' P: .000 P: . 241 APPENDIX B TABLE 31 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG RATER SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL ITEMS 13442 TABLE 31 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG RATER SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL ITEMS aaa. .a Haaa H aaae. aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. cac. .a Heme H aaac. aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. aaa. "a Heme H eeaa. aaa. ”a Heme H aaac. aaa. .a Haaa H aaac. aaa. .a Heme H aaac. HNanmNm aaa. .a aaa. "a Heaa H Heme H acce. aaac. aaa. «a cac. "a Haca H Heea H aaac. aaac.- aaa. "a ace. "a Heaa H Heme H aeca. aaac.- cac. "a Nae. .a Heaa H Heme H caca. aaac. eca. .a aaa. .a Heaa H Heme H aaac. aaac.- aaa. .e ace. "a Heaa H Haaa H memo. ~mao.- cea. .e Hee. .a Heaa H Heaa H aaac. ceee.- aaa. .a ace. «a Heea H Heaa H aaa.. mace. aaaaaaa acaaaaa . um Haaa H aaac.e aaa. "a Hcaa H aaac. aaa. "a Haaa H aaa.. aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. eca. "a Haaa H aaac. aaa. .a Hcea H eaee. aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. aaa. "a Heme H aaac. emanmwm aaa. "a Heac H HamN. HaaN H ccac.e aaa. "a Hcaa H aeaa. aaa. um Heaa H aae~. aaa. “a Heaa H “mam. aaa. "a Hcaa H aaac. cac. um Heaa H aaac. aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. an ace. «a Heme H aaac. aaa. "a Haaa H aeea. . "a Heme H aaaa.H aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. ace. "a Heaa H aaa.. aaa. "a Heme H aaac. ace. “a Heaa H aaac. cac. "a Hcaa H aaac. ~monm~m H882 aaa. "a Heme H aaac. cac. "a Heme H eeea. cac. .a Heaa H aaa.. ace. .a Heea H aaac. . "a Heaa H cccc.H 44 CL. cac. Heme H aaac. ace. "a Heme H Haaa. cac. .a Heme H aaac. aaoaaaa aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. aaa. "a Heea H aaac. cac. .e Heac H .aae. eae. na Heea H aaaa. aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. . .a Heaa H acae.H aaa. “a Heaa H aeaa. cac. .e Heca H eeee. mHo~m~m ace. "a Heme H aaac. aaa. "a Haaa H mace. aaa. «a Heme H aaa.. ace. "a Heaa H aaac. aaa. .a Heea H Haaa. cac. .a Heac H aaac. . "m Heaa H aaaa.e aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. mHonmNm aaa. "a acaaeeaaaaa Heea H H.Haeeaeaa cac.. eaaaaaa aaa. .a aeeaaeaaeae Haaa H Haeaeeaaaeea aaac. aaaaaaa aaa. .a Haeaaeaaaa Haaa H H.aaeaaaaaa aaac. «acme aaa. .a aaHeaa Heaa H Heaeacaa aaac. Haaaaaa aaa. "a a.eeaaaaa Hce~ H Haaeaeeeax aaa.. caaeaaa aaa. "a aHaHa :3 H 55:: eaee. ceaaaaa aaa. .a aeaeaaeaa Heaa H Haaeaaaea aaac. aeaaaaa . um 28“” Heme H exam: eaca.e eeaaaae aeaaaaa 234:3 TABLE 31 (Cout’d) aaa. "a Hcaa H aaac. aaa. .a Hcaa H aeea. aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. aaa. .a Heaa H aaac. . "a Hcaa H acaa.e cce. "a Heae H aaac. aaa. "a Heme H aaac.- Haa. "a Hcau H aeee. aaa. "a Heaa H aaaa. ace. .a Heae H anew. aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. . "a Haaa H acca.e aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. 88mg egg. aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. aaa. "a Haaa H aaac.- aaa. "a Heaa H aaac.- ace. .a vau H mama. . «a Hana H acaa.H age aaa. "a Heme H aeea. aaa. "a Heme H aaac. aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. aaa. 6a Heaa H eame. cac. .a Heme H aaac. aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. mmo. um Lee... H Haas. c888 aaa. "a Haea H aaac. ace. "a Heea H aaac. ace. «a Hcaa H aaac. aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. aaa. "a Hcau H eaae. aaa. «a Heaa H aaac. aaa. "a Heaa H aaac.- «Nanmum aaa. .e Hcae H eeee. cee. .e Heaa H aaac. aaa. .a Haea H aaaa. cca. we Haaa H aaa.. aaa. .a Heme H aaac. aaa. «a Haaa H aaac. aaa. "a Hcaa H aaac.- magma aaa. "a Heaa H aaae. ace. "a Heaa H aaac. aaa. "a Hcaa H aaac. cce. .e Heme H aaac. aaa. "a Heme H aaac. cee. "a Heaa H aaac. aaa. .a Heaa H aaac. H~o~m~m aaa. .a Haaa H aaac. aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. aaa. «a Heea H acea. aaa. "a Heme H aaac. cac. "a Heaa H aeaa. aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. owe. um fit 88mg cac. .a Heae H aaac. aaa. «a Heaa H aaac. aaa. um Hcea H amm~. cee. .e Heme H aaac. ace. «a Hcca H aaac. aaa. "a Heme H aaac. cac. "a HaaN H aaac.- 298a ace. "a Heaa H aaac. 8°. um Haaa H came. aee. "a Heea H emcc. aaa. .a Heme H aaac. ace. um Heea H mao~. aaa. "a Heme H aaac. Hee. «a Heaa H aaac.- «Honmum aaa. "a ..Heaeaeae :a H $8.325 aaac. eeaaaca aaa. "a acaeeaacaea Hcea H Ha.aeaaeaaa aaac. eaaaaaa aaa. .a Haaacea Heea H Heaaaeeaaa aaea. aaaaaaa aaa. 6a eaaaaea Haas H Haeaaaeaaa aaac. aaaaaaa aec. "a aaac.: Heaa H Haaaaaaue aaac. eeaaaaa ace. .a ecaaaaea Hcaa H HeeHaHaeaae can. aaaaaaa aaa. .a caeeaaae. Heea H Heaeae.aa 2:. 88am eeaaaaa 224u4 TABLE 31 (Cont’d) . "a Heaa H cocc.H ace. .a Hcaa H mocc. cac. no Heec H coho. ccc. um Heaa H eeae. ccc. um Hcac H Noon. Hae. .a Heca H acae. Hco~m~c coo. no Heaa H mocc. . .a Heaa H cocc.H aaa. .e Hcea H moon. aaa. "a Haaa H cmcc. ccc. no Heaa H ~Hmo. ccc. no Hcaa H eeea. 38mg aaa. "a Haaa H ccsn. aaa. «a Heaa H coco. . .a HaaN H cocc.H aaa. .a Heaa H ccmv. ace. .e Heme H choc. ccc. no Heca H eeaa. coonmwm coo. no HHNM. Hmonmwm aaa. .a aaaHaaHaaea Heaa H ea.aeeaeaaa aaa.. 28.6.8 aaa. .a aaaeaaa Heea H Haaeaaeaac acme. aaaaaae . "a aaaeaaa Heaa H Heeaeaauae eeaa.e aaaaaae caa. .a aaac.: Haaa H \aaaaaa.a aaa. aeaaaaa eec. "a eaHaHaaa Heaa H Heeaaeeeaaa eeaa. aaaamaa 888a ..Heeeaeea Heea H H.ea.eae.aa aaa. "a Heea H cHHc.- coo. um Heme H aaac. aaa. "a Heea H aaac. aaa. .a Heaa H aaac. cac. "a Heaa H aaac. aaa. "a Hcaa H aaac. aaa. "a Haea H ceaa. ace. . Heaa H aaac. cea. .e Heaa H \omcH. Hmocmmm aaa. "a Heaa H Hmcc.- aaa. "a Heme H aaac. aaa. .a Heaa H acac. ace. .e Heaa H Newa. aaa. .a Heaa H aaac. ace. “a Hcea H aaac. aaa. "a Heaa H caee. cac. "a Heme H aaac. aaa. "a Hcaa H acae. cmonmwm aaa. «a Haaa H aaac. aaa. "a Heae H aaac. aaa. .e Heaa H acee. aaa. 4. Heae H aaac. cac. "a Heca H aaac. ace. "a Heme H aaac. aaa. "a Heme H aaac. aaa. "a Heaa H cac.. ace. .a Haaa H ccvc. $ng Hsn. no ocHchuu: Heme H eaaeae.aa aaac.- aaaaaaa aaa. "a eaaaeeaaeaa Heaa H \.eeeaaeaa aaa.. eaaaaaa eca. .a aaaaaaaaeac Haea H Haaeaacaeeae can. 88am. aaa. .a Heeaaeaaaa Heaa H Ha.aaaauaaaa aaa.. aaaaaaa aaa. “a aaHeaa Heaa H Heaeaaea aaa.. Heaaaaa aaa. .a aaaaaaaaa Hcaa H Ha.cHaa.aa aaa.. aaaaaaa ace. a 22.3: Heaa H Haaeea aaac. aeaaaae cac. .a aeeaaaaaa Heea H eaaeeaaea aaa.. aeaaaae aaa. "a eeaaem Heaa H eaaea aaac. eaanaae aaaaaaa 245 APPENDIX C TABLE 32 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG RATER AND CANDIDATE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL ITEMS 21445 TABLE 32 cvv. Ia ..." H Hmoc.4 NHv. Io ..." H nano. m ......HM -a D onoof mm eve. In M 33 H PM noon. nxu . u m m Ham... a . . A n "00. I“ m m an. mm ea.-. mm ac.-. 0 mm" .99. n. W. m an. . m n an .H n M :3. m M an -.H “up .nnu. m cm a O a . no . - on Mama u m onno. M“ “on. In .... an"... 0.0. I. H..~ H Hood. Hecanan coo. 4L H.o~ H coco. coo. 4; ...N H -oa. noo. Ia Hvoa H an... ~oc. 4a H.o~ H «a... Hoe. nu Hoaa H acne. .ae. 4; ...a H ...o.- ace. in ..." H ..«H. ..o. la Heua H oaaa. vac. us Hoaa H ”and. ace. 4a ...a H an... a... nu ...” H neon. moo. In Ho.” H Home. ooo. 15 Ho.“ H ..on. .oo. in Hons H aaa.. aaa. .5 Ho." H o.... cacao—a aaa. -a ..." H n.oa. one. .a Houa H ..ao. ~oo. is Hvau H ...H. cac. 4; ...” H ..u.. ace. 4; Heua H “nae. .... -a Hvaa H coco. .... 4; H.o~ H anon. e-. 4; H..~ H nave. ~.~. .a Hcoa H cave. ago. .a ...“ H a..H. ace. in Hooa H .ana. «an. us Hooa H o.HH. «ca. -5 ...a H an... ace. .5 Ho." H ..o_. mac. :3 Hoo~ H acne. cucumno ... .a Heaa H o~Ho. are. -5 H.0a H oHoo. n~:. vs Home H ace? ace. .5 Hone H ..n.. ace. .5 Hvaa H .ooH. ace. -5 ...“ H aaac. poo. 4.. Hoaa H an... ea.. -5 Hooa H oauo. .oc. rs H..a H conH. ace. in Ho.“ H .~.H. Hec. pa Hcaa H aaa.. one. -5 Hone H nHoo. Hoe. ta Hooa H o~.H. o~o. 1; Hvo~ H on... ..a. -5 Hana H aaa.. easemHL ace. .5 Hose H ..ao. are. .5 ...9a H Huaa. cos. I; ...“ H cone. ..c. um Heox. H .HoH. «.o. is cha H oHoH. Ho.. .3 Hcaa H o..o.- am~. .e ...a H ~.ao. ~eo. 45 Ho.“ H o.o.. mac. ,5 H..~ H ..no.- HKH. no Heaa H come. a... .e Hoaa H once. .~o. um Houa H aaa.. coo. .5 Hone H oaan. vac. ta ..." H an... ace. .5 ..aa H o~o_. anowm—a on». :. H..~ H ...o. OOP- 8.- Hcoa H ...o.. o—o. 4; ...“ H e.g.. ..c. .e ...“ H aaa.. ace. 1. Hana H oeoa. aaa. .a H..~ H ..ao. nm~. ta Hcoa H ..no. pro. I. Hooa H ...o. ace. .5 Hcoa H ..«o. ace. 4; H..~ H aaac. van. :3 ...“ H ..o—. a... .5 H..~ H -no. «co. in Hvoa H once. ouo. In econ H once. aaa. is ...u H onus. o~o~uaa ace. 15 Hvoa H 9.... aaa. ya Hvaa H o..o.- aaa. [a Hooa H an... ace .5 Hvo~ H ...o. aaa. 4“ H..~ H Hana. a... :a Hcoa H ouno. ..o. -e ...a H ..NH. evo. .5 ...“ H aaac. o~.. .a H..~ H ...o. ~ae. 4a ...a H aaac. ace. in Hoaa H once. vno. In Hvaa H ..oa. ooo. so ...“ H ...H. coo. ta ..." H no... ..o. is ... H aaac. n~c~n—& cu... .H H.aa H ...o. ~eo. 7; Heaa H ..o.. v—:. -..— ...a. H ..~H cac. ta H..~ H aaa.. aaa. -a Hose H .oHH. ace. -a Hvo~ H aaac.- oco. to Hcoa H H~.o. can. .... Houa H .nHo. vac. u; Hvua H coco.n Hoo. 5; H..a H aaa.. ace. .5 Hooa H ..o.. a... -5 Ho.“ H aaac. ace. in Hvoa H aaa.. woo. IL H.m~ H «a... ace. .5 ...“ H coon. cavemen ran. .5 Hoae H ...o. ace. .3 ...“ H Hana. aaa. -5 H..a H gene. era. is Hvaa H o.no. mac. .5 H..~ H ...o. con. to ...“ H ...o.- woo. to Hooa H ...o. ouv. 4& Hoaa H aaac. ace. .5 Hooa H «aaa.- Hoe. um ..." H aaac. .a.. -a Hoaa H cone. aaa. us chu H aaac. ooo. Ia Hoga H nu... a... in Hoan H aaac. nee. 4; ...n H acne. nuOnQ—L «cc. .3 Hao~ H o.ac. ace. .5 Haoa H aaac. aaa. -a Hana H ..n.. Hcp. ra Haas H cone. ace. 45 HH.~ H coco. .... 4a Huge H .noo. oon. so Hana H aaac.- "0.. us Haau H .aoo.- ace. in Haaa H «on..- men. us Haas H coco. .aa. .5 Haou H aaac. .... .a Haaa H an... aaa. :5 Hana H as... o... .5 a... H "one. gnu. ta Hauu H ...o.. -O~unh cc:. -3 Hana H nuna. .... .5 Ha.“ H .«Ho. COO. ...- Hnaa H aaa.. vno. is Hnoa H .naa. mac. .5 Huon H once. ca.. .5 Huoa H Home. ~o~. :5 Ha.“ H o.no. cmo. :5 Ha.“ H Hugo. no“. la .nua H cane. Han. um Ha." H ..uo. nos. ta Hnuu H ...o. vac. Is Huaa H name. ooo. no Hana H anon. age. as Haas H aaac. ..o. us Haoa H Hone. —~O~o—h C> \o Hezceeeo venue-so «nauonh ca: HQHUeH; \9. coo«cco onaaono age—.1. \>:unooa:o \o OnoNIQG cHzcscL 3383 Quays: \Cululllu soon-ah need-coo: \c>ooHooec~ ezH—auoo: \oeHsH-os anchouo \o a \u u:¢oq~HOH:H cocaccso onus-no nusouuxu nooouulu noon-fl. unoouoaa \n-OIIOIIBD O>quud \CD¢OOIL «nan-no Guano-yo: \Iobnts on Oh. oHaH-uaa \oH-H- cans-n- 030935. \ao uguuo on In. 9:0. an \uop- span-no alolndx 247 TABLE 32 (Cont‘d) .oo. no .oo. H .oo.. o... no H... H ammo. .oo. no .oo. H n.... ooo. no .oo. H ...o. ooo. no .oo. H .oo.. oao. no H... H onoo. ooo. no .oo. H ...o. .oo. no .oo. H .oo.. .oo. no H... H .oo.. o... no H... H .ooo. oao. no H... H ..o.. .oo. no .oo. H coco. ooo. no .oo. H o.... ooo. no .oo. H on... vco. no .oo. H .oo.. NvONG—m moo. no Hons H .oo.. ~.o. no Ho." H .oo.. ooo. no H... H «.... ooo. no .oon H .oo.. .oo. no H... H .oo.. oo.. no H... H o..o.n a... no ...n H ..oo. .oo. no H... H .oo.. .oo. no .ooo H .o... o.o. no H... H «.... o... no H... H onoo. .oo. no .oo. H «o... ooo. no H... H .oo.. ooo. no an." H .oo.. one. to H... H ..oo. ..c.o.o .oo. no H... H .oo.. ono. no H... H ..oo. coo. Io H... H .o... ooo. no H... H o.o.. .oo. no H... H .oo.. one. no H... H ...o. ..o. no H... H ..oo. ..o. no H... H ..o.. .oo. no H... H ..o.. no.. no H... H .ooo.n o.o. no H... H on... non. lo a... H choc. ..o. no a... H on... ncc. In ..on H .oo.. .oo. to H... H .oo.. ocean—o ooo. no H... H ..o.. oeo. no H... H .oo.. coc. no .oou H .oo.. coo. IL Hoon H .ono. .oo. no H... H .oo.. on.. no H... H o.~o. .oo. no H... H ...o. ooo. no H... H ..oo. oco. no H... H .o... .oo. no H... H ..o.. ooo. no H... H ...o. .oo. no H... H .oo.. ccc. no H... H .oo.. ncc. no a... H ..o.. nvc. to H... H .ooo. cacao.o o.o. no H... H .oo.. no.. no .ooo H oooo. ooo. .o H... H .oo.. .oo. no Hooo H o.... .oo. no H... H .oo.. oo.. no H... H o.oo. a... no Hooo H ..oo.. .oo. no H... H oooo. a... no H... H .ooo. ..o. no H... H ..o.. ..o. no H... H ..o.. ..o. no ..o« H no... ooo. no Hoon H o..~. ccc. no Hoon H o.-. 0.0. n& H... H .oo.. cecao.o o... no H... H ..oo. .oo. no H... H o..o. ooo. no .oo. H .oo.. QHc. In .oo. H .oo.. N... no H... H .ooo. .... no H... H ...o.. on.. no H... H ..oo. oo.. no .oo. H ...o. .oo. no H... H oo... .oo. no Hooo H .ooo. .... no Hooo H oooo. .oo. no H... H o.a.. ooo. no H... H oo... ooo. no .ooo H ooo.. ouo. no H... H .n... .no~c.o a... no H... H ooao. o... no H... H ..«o. .... no .oo. H ..«o. Noon IL Hooo H n..o. .oo. no H... H ..oo. .oo. no .oo. H nooo.n .... no .oo. H on.o. .... no .oo. H ...o.n one. no H... H .ooo.n o... no H... H ...o. ..o. no H... H oooo.n .oo. no H... H .ooo.n man. no Hons H «Ono. «no. no .oon H oooo.n ono. no Ho.” H coco.n cnONQ-m .oo. no H... H .ooo. o... no ..o~ H ...o. o .oo. no H... H no... ccH. no Hoon H oooo. .... no .oo. H ...o. .oo. no .oo. H ..oo.n no.. no .oo. H ...o. oo.. no H... H oooo. .oo. no H... H oooo. oo.. no .ooo H ..oo. o... no H... H .ooo. on.. no H... H oooo. ..o. no H... H ooo.. coo. no .oo. H \maoo. ova. no Hooo H oono. oeooo.o .oo. no Hooa H .oo.. .oo. no H... H .oo.. ooo. no H... H no... ccc. In .oou H noon. ooo. no H... H .oo.. o... no H... H ..oo.n oo.. no H... H o..o. .... no Hoon H ...o. o... no H... H oooo. ouo. no H... H no... «.o. no H... H .oo.. .oo. no .oo. H .oo.. ooo. no Hooa H o.oa. vcc. no .oon H .oo.. ..o. no H... H o.... .oo.».o «cc. It Hnoo H on... can. no ..o« H .ono.n «cc. to Hnoo H .oo.. «cc. to H... H .oo.. .oo. no H... H .oo.. .oo. no ..." H ...o. ooo. no H... H ono.. .oo. no ..o« H o.... .oo. no .oo. H .oo.. moo. no H... H oooo. .oo. no H... H on... ..o. no anon H ooo.. .oo. no H... H .oo.. .oo. no .no« H .oo.. ooo. no H... H ooou. ..o.o.o o... no H... H mono. oon. no H... H .ooo.n o.o. no H... H ..... cno. no Hooa H .oo.. oo.. no H... H oono. ooo. no H... H ..o.. a... no .oo. H oooo. .oo. no Haas H oooo. .... no H... H oooo. ooo. no H... H nooo. o.o. no H... H on... ..o. no H... H on... .oo. no H... H ..o.. .oo. no .... H .oo.. coo. to .oo. H o.o.. ..o.o.o cacuoaouu‘ \.uoouuucnu anon-no one .oHooHa \o. .93.! coca-no o5 ...... 25.3.8 .oo.-no 0.5-o-o \oHa-o-oeu anon-no canon: \oululllu anon."- ooHooooa \I>qucooclu coon-«h counsel-l \oaanlno anon-N. 288...»... x...oaoHnu .oo.-... uncoouuufl \uuoouuulu nnaflunh «sun-000:0 \cooouollnfl «nan-N. lacuna \oocco-o «caucus OOH-fiduo‘ \‘ocuUOIflD ONONINH uHuoouoeu \ ...-on.- ..ou-ao coco». \uo-I o.0u-o 248 TABLE 32 (Cont’d) . no .ooo H oooo.. ooo. no Hoo~ H oooo. ooo. no Hooo H ooon. ooo. no Homo H ..~o. ooo. no Hoo~ H ~o~.. .oo. no .oou H .oo.. .oo. no .oon H oooo.n ooo. no Hooo .H o.o~. ooo. no ..o. H nooo. ooo. no Hooo H .oo.. ooo. no Homo H coo.. ooo. no Hoou H no... ooo. no .oon H aeoN. ooo. -o Hoo~ H oooa. ooo. no .oo. H oao.. .ao~n~o ooo. no Hooo H oooo. I .. .oou H oooo.. ooo. no .ooo H noon. ooo. no .oo. H oooo. ooo. no Hooo H ~.... ooo. no .oo. H o..~. moo. no Hoon H .ooo.n «.o. no Hoon H oo... o... no .ooa H nooo. ooo. no .ooo H Nooo. ooo. no .ooo H coco. ooo. no Homo H oa... ooo. no .ooo H on... ooo. no Hoon H oooo. «oo. no ..oo H «oo.. oncoouo ooo. no .ooo H coon. ooo. no .oou H no... . no .oon H oooo.. ooo. no .ooo H oooo. ooo. no Hooa H coon. ooo. no .ooo H oaoo. coo. no .oou H oooo. ooo. no .ooa H ~e.~. «no. no .oo. H .oo.. ooo. no .ooo H oooo. ooo. no How“ H mono. ooo. no ..on H ooao. ooo. no .oou H oooo. ooo. no .oou H on... ooo. no Hooa H .ooo. oocaaao ooo. no .ooo H ..on. ooo. no .oo~ H oooo. ooo. no .oou H mono. I 'fi Homo H oooo.. ooo. no Homo H oono. ooo. no Hooo H oaoo. .oo. no .oou H no.o.n ooo. no .ooo H oooo. ooo. no .ooo H oo.~. ooo. no Hooo H none. ooo. no Hoo~ H .o... ooo. no Homo H ~ooo. ooo. no Hoo~ H noon. ooo. no Homo H o.o.. ooo. no Hoo~ H coon. o~o~m~o ooo. no Hoou H ooou. «.o. no Hooo H o.... «.o. no .ooa H «.... o.o. no Hooo H oo~.. ooo. no .ooo H .oo~. o... no Homo H o.ao. ova. no Hoo~ H ...o.- .oo. .o Hooo H oooo. ovo. 4o Homo H .~o.. o.o. .o .ooa H ~.~.. mom. o Hoou H .ooo. .oo. no Homo H .eoo. noo. -o Hoo~ H .ooo. ooo. no Hoom H o.oo. ooo. no Hoo~ H oooe. ~n0~mnm ono. no Haoo H aaa.. .oo. no Homo H nooo. ooo. no Haou H ooo~. .oo. no ..oo H aaa.. ~.o. no Hnoo H o.... .oo. no .ooo H oooo. .oo. no .noo H o.oo.n coo. no Haoo H .ooo. .o.. no Heoo H mono. a~o. no Haoo H .a... a... no Heoo H oaoo. .oo. no Haoo H o.o.. ooo. no .no~ H ooo~. ooo. no ..o~ H o.-. oao. no Hoo~ H aaa.. .mo~m.o 000. It .ooo aaa.. H can. lm Hooo coco. H unoo. no Hoo~ H 001—. noon It ..oo o.... H «cc. In Homo oao.. H can. 3‘ Hoo~ ~ooo. H and. IE .ooo oaoo.n H «CO. In Hoo~ o.o.. H coo. In .oo~ coco. H 500. um Avom whoa. H no~. In .ooo .aao.n H oven In HvON unoo. H ~00. IL .ooo ..e.. H ~Ho. 0m H Hooo ..n.. «on. n“ Homo ammo. onO~m~m H on.. no .ooa H oono. oo.. no Hooo H oooo. ooo. no Hoo~ H oeoo. a... no Homo H «.oo. o.o. no .ooo H eon.. .oo. no Hoo~ H oooo. oo.. no Hooo H -mo. oon. no Hooo H oooo. .o.. no .ooo H Na.o.n moo. no Hooo H oo~o. .o.. no .ooo H oaoo.n ooa. no .oon H ~o~o. .oo. no .ooo H o.o.. oou. no .ooo H coco. ooo. no .ooo H -o.. ooo~m.o ooo. no anon H .oo~. ooo. no ..oo H oooo. ooo. no .oo~ H oooo. ooo. no Hooo H homo. o... no ..o~ H oooo. ooo. no .noo H on... o-. no ..o~ H oooo. o.o. no ..o~ H .oo.. .oo. no Homo H ooo.. one. no Haoo H ooo.. o.~. no .noo H oooo. ono. no .ooo H o~o.. ooo. no Heo~ H .aoo. .oo. no Hana H oooo. on.. no ..o~ H o. o. o Nm.o «.o. no ..o~ H ..n.. «co..to Hao~ H ..o.. .oo. no Hnoo H aaa.. ..o. no Haoo H ac... .oo. no Hno~ H Nooo. .oo. no .oo. H o.... oao. no Hao~ H ..oo. o.~. no .oo. H .ooo. ..o. no Homo H co... .oo. no .eoo H aaoo. .oo. no .no~ H ooo.. .oo. no Haoo H .oo.. oeo. no Heo~ H ..o.. ooo. no Haoo H oaoo. ooo. no Haoo H No... ovc~mHo one. It Hoo~ ouoo. H «on. It .oom onno. 000. It Hoo~ o.o.. H cac. In .oo~ oo... H one. I“ Hooo onoo. H nvc. an Hvoa nooo. H cwv. 0A .oou oo.o.n H nun. IA .oon .ooo. H anon 5“ .oon ..... h.“ a I. Hooo «000. H o H onc. at Hoo~ o~oo. H «on. In .ooo ooao. H «00. It .oo. aaa.. H son. to .ooo o.oo. H noon at .ooo «oao. cv0~mum H oeo. no Hana H soon. ooo. no Haas H moon. .oo. no Homo H ooo.. .oo. no Haoo H oo... ..o. no .ooa H ooo.. ooo. no Hnoa H o.... ..o. no ..o~ H o.... o.o. no .oo. H .oo.. moo. no Haoo H nooo. ono. no Homo H oeoo. o... no Hnou H onoo. ooo. no .nou H oo... .oo. no Haoo H on... moo. no ..oo H no... .oo. no Haoo H aaa.. nocoo.o o.o. no Hoou H .oo.. .oo. no Hoou H ooo.. ooo. no .ooo H «.oo. .oo. no .oo. H o.... ooo. no Hooo H .ono. man. no .ooa H «.oo. .oo. no .oou H .ooo. ono. no .oo. H ooo.. o... no Homo H oono. o.o. no Hoo~ H .oo.. ooo. no Hoou H oooo. «.o. no Hooo H no... ooo. no Hooo H ooaN. o.o. no Hoou H .oo.. ooo. no .oou H on... .338 moo. It Hoou H as... .oo. no Homo H ooo.. ooo. no .vou H .ono. moo. no Hcoo H ono.. .oo. no .oou H n.... oon. no Hooa H oaoo. .... no .oou H .ooo. ooo. no Homo H ooo.. -.. no .ooo H .ooo. o.o. no ...u H oo... no.. no .oon H «moo. ooo. no .ooo H nooo. ooo. no .ooo H who“. ooo. no Hooa H oo.u. .oo. no .oou H on... ocean.o «HONMNL cnONMNm 0N0~m~m ONONWNL o~c~m~o 0N0~mwk nNONmNQ vNO~m~m n~0~m~5 NNONm~m -O~m~a ONONmNm a—ONmmm c—ONQNE o.c~m~o 249 APPENDIX D TABLE 33 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG CANDIDATE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL ITEMS 250 lifltllIcliiSEl ITQFTIEIK(3()IlltIiI.l\1fI()liEi [\IVP()PJ(3rESIZIVIIXPQ1FI(I [)1131313IIIEPJTFI}\I. [11EH5453 aaa. "a Heea aece. H aaa. no Home H aca.. aaa. "a Home H cac.. aaa. "a Home H a.... aaa. Home acae. ll HQ: ace. " Haac H aeea. aaa. u Haaa H aaac. aaa. .e Haaa H .aaa. HMONmHo aaa. . Haaa H aaac. cac. "a Home H aaac. ace. "a Haca H mace. cac. . Haae H aaa.. ace. 0 Haaa H aaac. aaa. ” Heaa H Hcaa. aaa. . Haaa H aacc. cac. "a Heaa H aaac. oMONmHo ace. 0 Haaa aaac. U ece. "a Home H acea. ace. "a Haea H caec. caa. ” Haaa H aaac. cac. Haaa caca. II an. aaa. . Haaa caea. V aaa. "a Haac H aaac. aac. “a Heaa H aaac. omOmmHo Haaa acaa.H ~——r cac. "a Haac H aaac. aaa. u Haam H aaa.. ace. u Haaa H aaac. aaa. " Haaa H chc. aaa. ” Haaa Haae. H aaa. . Haaa aaa.. H cca. Heaa H aaac. II On omOmmHo aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. Haaa H aaac.. cac. .a Heaa H cac.. aaa. no Heaa H acca. aaa. ”a Home H aaac. cac. ”a Haaa H aaac. ccc. Haaa H aaac. II an ace. "a Heaa H aaac. HNONmHo cac. "a Haea H aaa.. aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. Haaa H aaac.H cac. no Haaa H acaa. aaa. "a Heaa H aaac. .ca. "a Haaa H cac.. aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. aaa. "a Haaa H a.e~. cmOmmHo Ham-.. .oH acme. cceeaeeaaeea aeeacxca aaac. aaoceaceaeocaaeae ace. "a Home H aaac. aac. "a Haaa H acca. cac. "a Heaa Hcaa. ~—v Haac H aaac.. ace. "a Hcaa H caca. cac. "a Haaa H acHa. Hca. ”a Haaa H Haaa. coo. no Haaa H on HmHm. mmOmmHo m a z m H c H m m m o o z c H a c H m cca. no coca H Heac. aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. aaa. . Haaa H aaac. cac. . Haaa H accc. Haaa H aaaa.H aca. "a Haaa H caca. ace. .a Haaa H cac.. aaa. ”a Haaa H H.c~. cmOmmHo m m o o aaa. no aaa. "a H... H Home H Haae. aaa.. cac. "a cac. "a Haaa H Haaa H came. aaac. cac. u cac. "a Home H Haea H cac.. aaac. cac. . .ea. " Haaa H Hcaa H acHN. aaa.. cac. . aaa. "a Ham. H Haaa H .Haa. cac.. . " aaa. "a Haea H Haaa H aaac.. aaac. ace. 0 . " Haca H Haaa H aeea. aaac.. ace. "a cac. n Hcea H Haaa H aaa.. acaa. .88: .89.: aoaaaaa- eea. "a cacao. Heaa H Haceacea aaac. ceoaaea aca. no aaaeeeeaa Heae H Hc.aeeaaac aaac. aaoaaea cee. "a Heeaaco Haaa H HoaoHooea acac. cacaoca aaa. "a oHaeeoHo Haee H HchHa caee. aaoaa.a cac. no oHHocooou Heec H Hoocaaaco ..ca. caoaacc cac. "a Hecaoeoa Heea H HoHcaoeoHac cac.. eaoaaca aaa. "a aaoeea Haaa H Hceoo c.aa. aaoaaHo . no ooHoooom Haca H HaoHooHa. aaac.. eaoamHo .aoaaca 2:51 TABLE 33 (Cont’d) O a D 0 II On A in O‘ N ~—v coo. no '33 O 0 ll Go .ea. "a Hmaa H Heae. aaa. n Hmaa H aaac. aaa. "a Hmaa H cac.. ace. "a Hmaa H cmem. aaa. "a Hcaa H cama. aaa. "a Hcaa H amaa. cac. "a Hmea H HacH. . "a Hmea H aaac.. eca. no Hmea H acam. mea. "a Hmaa H acaa. ace. “a Hmaa aaac. H cac. .a Hmca H a.am. cac. "a Hcaa H amca. cac. Hcaa H aaHa. ll Q. aaa. "a Hmaa H aaa.. cac. "a Hmea H acam. . no Hmaa H aaac.. mac. " Hmca H amaH. II On cac. Hmaa aaaa. v cac. "a Hmaa H ccca. aaa. "a Hcaa H amma. ll Q. aaa. Hcaa H coca. H G. aaa. Hmaa H mace. cac. Hmaa H aaac. ll 0.- aaa. "a Hmaa H aaaa. cac. "a Hmaa H acme. cac. no Hmaa H amcc. aaa. "a Hmea H .mmc. aaa. "a Hcaa H amaa. aaa. no Hcaa H amca. 71 Q. aaa. Hmaa aaa.. H aaa. "a Hmaa H acam. aaa. "a Hmaa H acam. HmommHo omOmmHm mNONmHo N .o .mzmpH ocHozmcmomHo uHazczum czozc monaccmmm0ummazH aaoamHa Ell" HconHo ..a. .a Hmaa H ceca. ace. "a Hmaa H came. cce. "a Hmaa H cac.. aec. .e Hcaa H acme. aaa. Hcma came. H “a. aaa. "a Hmaa H cac.. cca. "a Hmea H mace. ace. "a Hmaa H aaac. omocmHo Ham-.a .oH mac. "a ace. .a Hmca H Hnaa emc..- a.e.. cac. "a ace. u Hmaa H Hmca acae. caea. aaa. "a ace. "a Hmaa Hmaa ac... mama. ace. . aaa. "a Hcaa H Hcea mama. aaa.. cac. "a cac. " Hcaa Hcaa aaca. aaaa. mac. "a aaa. "a Hmea Hmaa acme. ccca. aaa. "a cac. . Hmca Hmaa ceaa. amaa. eca. "a aaa. "a Hmaa H aaHmaa H aaca. emca. maoaaee caoaaca HQ. aaa. u Hmca H acce.- cac. no Hmaa H maaa. ace. Hmaa emec. ll ‘9. cac. "a Hcaa H aaac. eca. no Hcaa H aaaa. aaa. "a Hmea H aaac. coo. no Hmaa H Hcee. aaa. no Hmaa H aaaa. mac. Haaa H ccce. ll On eec. "a Haaa H aaac. cac. "a Haaa H macc. emc. HHaa mace. H Um cac. "a Haaa H aoca. aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. ace. .a Haaa H eacc. cac. no Haaa H aaac. mNONmHo NNONmHo m a z m H u H m m m c c z o H a c o m c m c o z o m c c u o aec. "a Haea H mcca. ace. "a Haaa H .maa. aaa. "a Haca H mmea. cea. "a Haaa H mcaa. aaa. no Haea H eeaa. aaa. "a Haaa H .ea.. aaa. "a Haaa H cmma. ace. no Haaa H aaac. HwocmHo 2.28.0.3. HooHoHBo ccoamHo cecHaaaco. H.0Heaca. maoaaea oHHHHucHHooo \- asaeoaa caaaaea 238.58g H .3885 mmOmmHo o>HH=mHHc H..aeaacae NmONmHo H.833.» Heaoeoeea. HmommHo eaaaeaaaaae H...eaeeaa cmomeo H. cmmmooom $883.5 cmocmHo 2152! TABLE 33 (Cont’d) moo. no coo. no ccc. n ooc. no coo. no ccc. no coc. u Hco. n oco. no ccc. no coo. no cocoa: Hmca H Hmea H Hmaa H Hmea H Hmea H Hmaa H Hmma H Hmaa H Hmaa H Haea H Heaa H Heoaaeao. aaa.. Haam. amec. ecea. aaac. aaac. aaaa. ea... mama. aaac. Haaa. ccaamca cac. "a cac. "a cac. "a ace. . ace. . aaa. "a cac. "a aaa. "a ace. .a ace. . eca. .a maceceaa. Hmea H Hmca H Hmaa H Hmaa H . Hmma H Hmea H Hmea H Hmaa H Hmaa H Haaa H Heea H Haaoeaecacea aaa.. emcm. emcm. ccea. a mm. aaac. mama. cmma. aaaa. aaac. ..ac. acaaaea ace. "a acc. "a ace. "a ace. . aaa. "a aaa. "a cac. .a aoa. "a eca. "a eee. "a aaa. "a Haeecaaaaaa Haaa H Haca H Hcaa H Hcaa H Haaa H Hcea H Heaa H Haea H Heaa H Haca H Hcaa H o.aaaaeeaa mmme. ecaa. mmce. caaa. a.aa. ach. cac.. cac.. acea. ceea. meaa. acaamca ace. .a ccc. "a ecc. .a cac. "a ace. 0 aca. .a cac. .e cce. "a cac. "a eca. "a ace. "a caeaaaa-aaea Hmaa H Hmaa H Hmaa H Hmea H Hmaa H Hmaa H Hmca H Hmea H Hmea H Haea H Haaa H HH... cama. caec. mmam. emaa. amam. emaa. emce. acaa. eaaa. mace. ca.c. Hcaaaca aaa. . aaa. "a cac. .a cac. .a cac. "a cac. "a ace. "a cce. "e cac. "a mac. "a cac. "a cameo. Hcca H Hcaa H Hcaa H Hcca H Hcaa H Hcea H Hcma H Hcca H Hcaa H Hcaa H Haaa H Heaoaoaaea aaa.. meca. acma. cc... memc. acme. mace. camc. ceca. cma.. ac... ccaamea ace. "a ace. .a ece. "a cac. "a ecc. . ecc. "a cac. . ace. .a cee. "a ace. "a aee. no caeeaaaa HaaH maH HaaH maH HaaH 33H HaaH maH HaaH :aH HachE§§§ maaH. .acm. amcc. cama. aaac. caea. acca. ea.a. ceaa. .aaa. amma. maaaa.a ccc. u ccc. no ccc. uo ccc. u ccc. no ccc. no ccc. no ccc. u ccc. uo ccc. no ccc. no mHnooou Hmaa H Hmaa H Hmea H Hmaa H Hmma H Hmma H Hmaa H Hmea H Hmaa H Haca H Haaa H Hocaeocoae acea. ccem. .eem. cmma. aaac. aaac. ce.a. eaaa. caca. mcam. amma. aeoam.e aaa. .e cac. "a cea. "a eea. "a cac. .a eae. "a ccc. .e aca. "a cac. .a cac. .a aee. "a ecomaaea HaaH mm H HeaH an H HaaH as H HaaH :2 H HaaH :a H HaaH 3:382. aaa.. mama. Heme. came. cccc. cc... eccc. a. ae.e. memc. Heme. aaac. emaamca HmocmHo cmommHo cNONmHo oNONmHo HmocmHo omocmHo m~o~mHo «mommHo mmommHo -o~mHo HmcmmHo -------------nmaaaeaeaeaoo aoceacaaaoc aoma.aa-------------- Hamea .cH . e .a .maaee aceaaoaaaaea o.ac.=am aaac. mao.aaaaaaoaaaeae ELSE! TABLE 33 (Cont’d) cae. "a Hmma H ea... ace. no Hcma H acme. ch. "a Hmaa H cmee. mac. "a Hmaa H acaa. eea. "a Hcaa H aaca. eec. .a Hcaa H mmHa. aaa. u Hmaa H aaa.. cca. no Hcea H acaa. .aoamco .aa. no Hmaa H aaa.. cea. u Hcaa H caca. cea. no Hmaa H .eHc. aec. "a Hmaa aaac. H cac. no Hcaa H cama. aaa. "a Hcaa H meaa. cac. Hmma H came. ll Q- caa. no Hcaa H amm.. cacao: ace. .a Hmca H aaa.. aaa. Hcaa aaac. ll VG: aaa. Hmaa mace. H Va. cac. "a Hmaa H mccc. aca. ”a Hcaa H ccaa. aaa. Hcaa H aaac. II an. ace. “a Hmaa H caaa. ace. "a Hcaa H aaa.. cacamea aaa. Hmaa aama. aaa. Hcaa aaaa. aaa. Hmaa aaaH. aaa. Hmaa came. aaa. Hcaa aaa.. aaa. Hcaa .mea. aaa. Hmaa emaa. cee. Hcaa cHHa. cacao. IL. no u on no no ll 0. no "a H o .cc. 4 Hmaa H Hmc.. ace. . Hcaa H mamc. aaa. Hmaa maac. II an. ace. no Hmma H aaac. aaa. Hcaa amaa. M “Q. aaa. "a Hcaa H cmma. cac. "a Hmea H aHaH. aaa. no Hcca H emaa. cacam.o mea. "a Hmaa H mca.. aaa. . Hcma H acHa. cca. "a Hmca H mamc. ace. "a Hmea H ca.a. aec. “a Hcea H maac. .ea. .a Hcma H aaa.. cac. no Hmaa H aaac. mac. "a Hcaa H cac.. aaoam: aaa. . aaa. "a Hmaa H Hmma H ..44. meaa. aae. "a aaa. "a Hcaa H Hcaa H amea. ccme. aaa. "a ch. .a Hmma H Hmaa H aaea. .mae. ace. "a aaa. "e Hmaa H Hmaa H cac.. meme. cac. "a cea. "a Hcaa H Hcma H Hmma. aaa.. aaa. "a aaa. ”a Hcma H Hcca H aaca. aaac. aaa. .a aaa. "a Hmaa H Hmaa H acea. cac.. aaa. no aaa. "a Hcaa H a. Hcma H aaHa. eeca. maoamz cacam: .aa. Hmaa H aaa.. u a. aaa. .a Hcaa H cac.. aaa. no Hmaa H Ham.. ace. "a Hmaa H aHHa. aaa. no Hcaa H a.... cac. no Hcaa H aaa.. aaa. Hmaa H aaa.. 11 Q. cac. no Hcaa H maaa. aaoamco ama. u Haaa H aaac. aaa. no H.oa H came. aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. ace. "a Haaa H mmHm. ace. no HHaa H mcaa. ace. "a Hcma H amaa. aec. "a Haaa H cmaa. maa. no Hcea H mcca. aaoaaea mczchHoomouH onacchHHcou zcmccmo nn Ham-.a .oH c .a do: aceaaaaaoaca eczema aaoa. maoeecaaaaoaaacae aaa. "a eeaeoeoae. Haaa H H.aocaaaeaa mmaa. amoameo aaa. "a aaoaeaaaa Haaa H Haaoaaa 83. .88: cac. "a aeaeeaHaaHa Haaa H Ha.eaeooacaa mcea. amoamee ace. no oeaaom Haaa H Hooaoaoa. cmee. acoamca ace. "a Haaecea Haca H Haaeaecaaa aHaa. acaam.a cco. no ~oow= Haaa H Hoaaeaaa mcca. acaamca cac. no coca Haaa H comma: e.ma. acoamae cac. no aceaooo Haca H Haaaaooea Haaa. mcaaa.a .aaamea 21544 TABLE 33 (Cont’d) aaa. "a aaa. "a .cc. "a cac. .a aaa. "a caa. .a mac. "a ace. " aaa. "a acc. "a cca. .a cacao. Haaa H Hmma H Hcaa H Hmaa H Hmaa H Hmea H Hmaa H Hmea H Hmea H Hcaa H Hcaa H Heaacmee caea. cmaa. aceH. mama. amma. aaac. ame.. aHaa. acma. emma. cmaa. aaaam.a ace. "a cee. "a cac. "a aaa. "a aaa. "a cac. "a a... .a aaa. n eaa. . aaa. "a cac. no ccaceacaa Heaa H Hmaa H Hcma H Hmaa H Hmaa H Hmma H Hmca H Hmea H Hmaa H Hcaa H Hcaa H Hc.cHaa.ac aHaa. cmam. mam.. aaac. aaac. eecc. acme. am.c. Hmmc. amaa. emca. eaaam.a aaa. "a cca. "a cac. “a cac. . aaa. "a aaa. "a ..a. "a cac. "a ace. "a eca. "a eca. "a .aeaoea Hcma H Hmaa H Hcaa H Hmaa H Hmma H Hmaa H Hmma H Hmma H Hmaa H Hcaa H Hcma H Hmaoaoaca aaac. cmaa. acme. ccea. aaac. ee.e. aecc.- came. eaec. amma. acme. maaam.e ace. "a cec. "a aaa. "a ace. . aee. "a cac. n mac. "a cac. . ece. "a eee. "a cea. "a eHaHacHa Haaa H Hmca H Hcma H Hmaa H Hmca H Hmaa H Hmca H Hmaa H Hmma H Hcaa H Hcca H HchHa eaca. amHe. mace. aeca. ceaa. ecce. emce.- acae. acme. mama. eama. maaamaa So. no ccc. no coo. no ccc. no ccc. uo ccc. u Hcc. no ccc. Ho ccc. no ccc. no ccc. no 23805 Heea H Hmaa H Hcaa H Hmaa H Hmea H Hmaa H Hmaa H Hmea H Hmaa H Hcaa H Hcaa H Hamaaaoam ceaH. aama. came. .aHa. aeaa. aaac. acce. caHa. mama. aaa.. emaa. caaamoa caa. "a aaa. .a aaa. "a ace. "a aaa. "a cac. . aaa. "a aaa. . cac. "a aea. "a aaa. "a .Heaocea Heaa H Hmca H Hcaa H Hmaa H Hmaa H Hmea H Hmea H Hmea H Hmaa H Hcaa H Hcaa H H..caa.aeac meca. eaaa. ceca. c..a. caaa. mama. acce.- maaa. amaa. meme. eaca. eaaam.a cec. "a cac. "a mca. "a aae. "a caa. "a cac. . me.. .a aaa. . eaa. "a amc. "a ace. no caaoam Haaa H Haaa H HHaa H Haaa H Haaa H Haaa H Haea H Haaa H Haaa H HHaa H H.aa H Home. caaa. meme. cmae. aaac. mcem. .cma. ccme. ach. mecc. mace. amaa. aaaamca ace. no aaa. "a Haa. "a aaa. "a aca. "a aaa. "a cac. "a aaa. "a cac. no ace. "a cac. no ooHooaam HHaa H Haaa H Haaa H Haaa H Haaa H Haaa H Haaa H Haaa H Haoa H Haaa H Haca H \aoHoooaH meHa. caec. ace.. amma. amma. aeaa. mace. a. .mca. mmaa. mcaa. aaaa. .aoamaa acoameo scam: Scam: cacao: cacam: cacao; macameo macam: cacao... cacao; aaoamao -------------1maaaeoeaaaoo aoeecaaaaoa comacao-------------c Ham-.a .oH . m .a .3: aseaaaaaea oEsom coo... maozaaaaaooaoaae iZfiS TABLE 33 (Cont’d) aaa. "a Haaa H aaac. aaa. no Haaa H e.ma. ace. "a Haaa aamc. H cac. "a Hama H cmam. aaa. Haaa H mmaa. ll O. aaa. "a Haaa H mmme. ace. . Haca H ecma. ace. . Haaa H mmaa. aaa. no Hmaa H amHa. aaa. no Hmaa H .caa. cae. no Hmaa H ..am. eea. "a Hcaa H aaaa. aaa. "a Hcaa H aema. ace. " Hmaa H camc. cac. . Hmea H cmac. ace. "a Hmaa H mmam. maa. "a Hcma H amaa. eea. "a Hcca H mmHa. aaa. . Hcaa H cmca. aaa. "a Hama H aacc. aaa. "a Hama H caaa. aaa. "a Hcaa H aaa.. ace. Hcaa H maca. ll Q- aaa. "a Hcaa H caaa. ac.. Hmma acme. aaa. Hmaa caaa. ecc. Hmaa emac. ace. Hcaa mcaa. aaa. Hcaa aaaa. Hec. Hmaa maeH. eaa. Hmaa .aam. cac. Hmaa am.c. ll an. no ll HQ. no .och. aaa. "a Hmma H eee. "a Hmma H Hamc. aaa. Hmaa aacm. N “a. ace. "a Hcaa H cama. eaa. "a Hcma H caaa. aca. "a Hmaa H acca. aaa. "a Hmaa H acam. aaa. "a Hmaa H HHam. aaa. . Hmaa H aacc. aaa. ”a Hmea H mama. aaa. no Hmaa H coca. .ca. "a Hcma H aaa.. cac. "a Hcaa H mcaa. aae. "a Hmca H mama. cac. .a Hmea H mama. aca. "a Hmaa H .ama. Ham-.a .oH m .a do: aaaeaaaaaaea 25.3 aaac. eoeaaaaaaooamaae Hmaa H caaa.. ll ‘3- ama. Hmaa H mcaa. II On cca. Hmma H mcaa.- mac. "a Hcaa H mcaa. mac. "a Hcaa H c..a.- cac. . Hmaa H came. aaa. Hmaa aaac. ll HQ. maa. "a Hmca H acaa.- a. ama. "a Hmaa H mcaa. Hmea H aacc.. cea. " Hmaa H mcaa. aaa. no Hcaa H caaa. cce. "a Hcma H caaa. ace. “a Hmaa H mcaa. cea. "a Hmaa H aacc. coo. uo Hmaa H aaac. aca. "a Hmaa H mcaa.- ace. " Hmma H mcaa. Hmaa H aacc.. aaa. "a Hcoa H mcam. aaa. no Hcma H ecaa. aaa. "a Hmaa H caaH. aac. "a Hmma cmam. H ace. "a Hmaa H aaam. -----------Hma=aea.aaaoa aoHacaaaaoo aomaaao mac. "a Hcoa mc... v aaa. "a Hcma H caaa. ace. “a Hcma H maam. Hcma H aacc.. aaa. .e Hama H mama. Hee. . Hcma H aaa.. aaa. "a Hcoa H mama. ace. "a Hcaa H amca. omv . no 053ch Hcaa H Heaeaeaeo aaac.- maoam.a aaa. "a eaceaaaaa. Hcea H H.a.caca. caaa. maaamea aaa. "a acaaaaaaaa :3 HHcSBas ecca. caaamaa aaa. no oaHacoooooo Haaa H H.oeoaooaa mama. aaaamea . .a acoeaeaa. Hcaa H Heaeeeeaaca. caaa.. aaoam.a ace. "a aaacaaea. Hcaa H Haaaeaoea. aeca. Haoamea aaa. "a aaacHHHeaae Hcaa H H.HHmaaHac emaa. aaaaaee ace. "a Haemmaaaam Hcaa H HH.mmmoaamaa 8:. saga IIIIIIIIIIIIIDO 21545 TABLE 33 (Cont’d) coc. no Haaa H acac. aaa. Haaa caaa. II an. Haaa H aaac.. caa. "a Haaa H maam. cac. "a Haaa H acmm. cac. "a Haaa H amma. aaa. . Haca ccec. g eaa. .a Haaa H ccaa. NcONmHo cac. Hmaa mamm. ll um cac. . Hmaa H Hamm. ace. "a Hama H maam. . ”a Hmaa H aaac.. cac. "a Hcaa H mcac. cac. "a Hmaa H aaac. aaa. "a Hmaa H aaam. aaa. "a Hmaa H cmac. HconHo aaa. . Hcaa H caaa. ace. . Hcea caaa. v aea. "a Hama H acmm. cac. Hcaa maac. ll an. . .a Hcaa H caaa.. aaa. ”a Hcaa H maaa. ace. ”a Hcma H acma. aaa. "a Hcaa H aama. chmmHo ace. na Hmaa H acac. cae. "a Hmaa H aaac. aaa. Haaa H amma. ll Q.- ece. Hmaa H aaac. ll 0. aaa. "a Hcaa H maaa. In Hmaa H caec.H aaa. ”a Hmaa H eHmm. aaa. .a Hmaa H mmea. cMONmHo n m a z m H u H o o m o c z o H a o c m m m o u z c m o a m o aaa. " Hmaa H accm. II D:- ace. Hmma maem. w aaa. "a Hama H acac. ace. "a Hmaa H aHam. aaa. "a Hcaa H acma. aaa. "a Hmaa H acmm. Hmaa H aaac.. cac. "a Hmaa H acac. oMONmHo ace. "a Hmaa H cmaa. cac. "a Hmaa H acac. aec. Haaa H ccaa. ll On cac. "a Hmea H cmac. ace. .a Hcaa H mama. aaa. "a Hmaa H mmea. cac. Hmaa H acac. u on . .a Hmaa H caaa.. omonHo Ham-.a .oH a .a .maaaa aaaaaaamaaaa aaazcaom caaa. maoaacamaaOaaacza aaa. "a aaa. no Hmaa H Hmaa H aacc.- mecca. mca. no aec. "a Hmaa H Hmaa H aaaa. amcc. ace. no aaa. "a Haca H Haaa H aaac.- eHma. aaa. "a cac. ”a Hmca H Hmaa H amea. ecaa. mac. "a aaa. "a Hcca H Hcaa H cma..- mmHa. ace. ”a aaa. .a Hmaa H Hmma H acme. caaa. aaa. "a cac. .a Hmea H Hmma H mecc.- .amc. aaa. .a aaa. .e Hmea H Hmaa H aacc.- an mama. maoaaaa macaaaa aaa. "a Hmea H cccm. cae. no Hmma aaac. w aaa. no Haaa aamc. H aaa. . Hmaa H .Ham. ecc. "a Hcaa H cmca. aaa. "a Hmaa H Hmac. eca. Hmaa H aacm. II 0.. cac. "a Hmaa H aaca. coONmHo aea. Hcca H cmma. II an ace. "a Hcaa H maaa. cac. "a Haaa H cmam. cca. "a Hcaa H acaa. ace. "a Haaa H aacc. cac. "a Hcaa H mcaa. aaa. "a Hcaa H aama. Hee. no Hcaa H aaa.. mmocmHo aaa. "a caaa.. Hcaa H Haeaaeao. amma. ccaamaa aaa. "a meceaaaa. Hcea H massage mcaa. acaamaa eea. "a Haaaaaamaae Haaa H H..amaaeaa cmaa. acoamaa aaa. no aaaaaao Hcca H -aacaHHaca aaaa. .caaaea aca. "a emcee: Haaa H Hamcaaamaa caaa. acaamaa aaa. "a coecaaca Hcca H Haaaeaaaoaa aaaa. eaaaaee cca. no oaaaooo Hcaa H Hceaeaeoa. caaa. aaaamea ace. no acameaea Hcea H Hecameacaa. mcaa. aaaamaa aaoaaee Iltlllllllllllo .25?7 TABLE 33 (Cont’d) aaa. . Hama H aaca. cea. no Haea H maaa. cac. no Haaa H maac. aaa. no Haaa H aaca. ace. no Haaa H Haea. cac. no Haaa H caaa. ace. . Haaa H aama. aaa. no Hama H aaca. NcONmHo cac. no Hmaa H amma. ace. no Hcaa H aaac. aaa. no Hmaa H aaac. ace. . Hmaa cmaa. H aaa. no Hcaa H mmaa. aaa. no Hcaa H amaa. aaa. .o Hmaa H amca. cac. no Hcaa H caaa. H¢0mmHo cea. . Hcaa H cmma. cea. no Haaa H mcca. aaa. no Hcaa H mcaa. ace. no Hcma H aama. aaa. no Haaa H aacc. aaa. no Haaa aama. H aaa. . Hcaa aaca. ~—v aaa. .o Haca H coma. ovommHo ace. 0 Hmaa caaa. a aaa. no Hcaa amaa. w ace. 1 Hmaa aaac. V ace. . Hmaa H aama. aac. no Hcaa H cmca. cac. no Hcaa H aaca. aaa. no Hmaa H mmca. aaa. no Hcaa H caaa. mmommHo n n m o z m H u H o o m o u z c H a c o m c o c u z c m a c m o II On aaa. Hmaa cac.. H ace. no Hcaa H meHc. aaa. no Hmaa H mHam. aaa. . Hmaa H caam. cac. no Hcaa H mcca. ecc. " Hcma H aama. aaa. no Hmca H aaac. Hae. no Hcaa H aaa.. cmonHo aaa. Hmma aama. eac. Hcaa mamc. aaa. Hmaa .aaa. eae. Hmaa aama. cac. Hcaa caaa. aaa. Hcaa aaca. ace. Hmaa aaaa. aaa. Hcaa mmaa. HmommH Ham-.a .oH a .o .mxmoe aaoaamoaoooa ooozcaam aaca. maooecaaooaaaaoza no no no no no II 0. no H o aaa. no Hmaa ea... s—r m... . Hcaa H mcmc. aaa. . Hmma aaac.- Nd eme. . Hmaa H amaa. aoe. no Hcaa H acaa. mac. " Hcaa ca... H II On mHa. Hmaa H .aac. aaa. no Hcaa Ha. aama. coonHo cm ..H cocw. N O- aaa. Hcaa H aaac. ace. no Hmaa H amca. ll Q: aaa. Hmaa H aaaa. 11 an. ace. Hcea H aaca. aaa. no Hcaa H acaa. cac. . Hmaa H cmaa. eca. no Hcaa H aaca. mmonHo aaa. u Hmaa H aama. aaa. no Hcaa H cmaa. cac. " Hmca H a..m. cac. no Hmaa H mcaa. cac. no Hcaa H acaa. aaa. no Hcaa H aaa.. ace. no Hmaa H mcaa. ace. no Hcaa H aama. emommHo aaa. no Hcma H maaa. aaa. no Hama H aama. ecc. no Hcaa H meaa. aaa. no Hcaa H mcaa. ace. no Haaa H cmaa. aee. no Haaa H mcaa. ll 9- cac. Hcma aaca. w ace. no Hama H cac.. ncommHo aaa. no acHeeaaaa. Hcea H H.aacoeacaa acce. amaameo ace. no caecaoaoa Haaa H Haoamaa mmaa. Hmaamao aaa. no aaaHHoHamoa Hcma H Ha.HoaomHaaa mmaa. cmoamao aaa. no moaoom Hcma H Haaaamoa. maaa. acoameo cac. no oaaaaoa Haaa H Hoaeacaaac caaa. acaaaao cac. no .ooea Hama H Hooocaac caaa. acoamao aaa. no coma Hcaa H Hoaaaa maca. mcaaaeo eca. no aaeaoao Haaa H Hoeaaoooaa aaa.. mcaameo aaoaaeo 11111111111111: 2151! TABLE 33 (Cont’d) aaa. . Hmaa H aama. aaa. no Hmaa H emae. mea. no Hmaa H mcaH. cac. no Hmaa H aaaa. aaa. no Hmaa H mcaa. aaa. no Hmaa H aaa.. mma. Haaa H aama. It Go aaa. no Haaa H mmaa. mmONmHo aaa. no Hcaa H amaa. aaa. no Hcaa H mamc. aaa. no Hcaa H aaca. aaa. no Hcaa H amaa. aaa. no Hcaa H ccma. aaa. no Hcaa H .aca. caa. no Haaa H cama. aaa. no Haaa H amcc. HmONmHo aaa. no Hmaa H aaa.. cac. . Hmaa H maac. aaa. no Hmaa mamc. V aaa. no Hmaa H aaHa. mac. no Hmaa amaa. w aaa. no Hmaa H Homo. aaa. no Haaa H aaac. aaa. no Haaa H mcaa. omOmmHo H n r m a z m H u H o o m o c z c H a c c m o x o u aaa. . Hmaa H aama. aaa. no Hmaa H aaaa. aaa. uo Hmaa H caHa. aaa. no Hmaa H cac.. aaa. Hmaa H mama. 11 0.. ace. " Hmaa H aaca. aaa. no Haaa H mmHm. aaa. no Haaa H cmaa. chmmHo aaa. no Hcaa H aama. aaa. no Hcaa H aaaa. aaa. no Hcaa H aaa.. aaa. no Hcaa H .mma. aaa. no Hcaa H aaa.. aaa. no Hcaa H aaa.. aaa. no Heaa mcaa. w aaa. no Haaa H Haaa. cvonHo Ham-.a .oH a .o .aamoo aaooamomooea aaazcxam aaac. azooacamoooooaaaa aaa. Hcaa amaa. aaa. Hcaa amma. Haa. Hcaa aaa.. aaa. Hcaa aaca. aaa. Hcaa aaaa. aaa. Hcaa caaa. aaa. HHaa amaa. aaa. Haaa maaa. H no no no no 11 CL. no .o H ocommHo aaa. Hmaa aoaa. aaa. Hmaa aaa.. aaa. Hmaa aaac. aaa. Hmaa aaca. aaa. Hmaa cac.. aaa. Hmaa aaa.. aaa. Haaa cmaa. aaa. Haaa ac ..ma. cocamH o II O. II On It On. ll 0. no .o H o no ccc. ace. 1 Hcaa H Hmaa H caaa. aaca. aaa. no aaa. no Hcaa H Hmaa H amaa. aaca. mac. no aaa. no Hcaa H Hmaa H cac.. aaac. aaa. "o aaa. no Hcaa H Hmaa H aaca. caaa. aaa. no .aa. no Hcaa H Hmaa H aaca. aaa.. aaa. no aaa. no Hcaa H Hmma H maca. mama. maa. no aaa. no Haaa H Haaa H mcca. aaac. aaa. no aaa. no Haaa H Haaa H Hmaa. caaa. mcaamao ccaamao aomoaoo-- aaa. no Hmaa H caaa. aaa. no Hmaa H ammm. aaa. no Hmaa H aaca. aaa. no Hmaa H aama. aaa. Hmaa amma. ll sag. aaa. no Hmaa H aaaa. aaa. no Haaa H aaac. ace. no Haaa H aaac. mcommHo II"--- eaHaa. Heaaaaeo aaoamao cmHocHHo: cecHHoacc HmocmHo Hoooooc HomoHooou macamHo caaaaeao Hcaaao maoameo oHHocoooc Hamaaaaom ccommHo oHcooHoo Hoaaaaaaaaa c~o~mHo cooon Hoco. aaoameo ooHoooom HooHooHoH HmoamHo 2155} TABLE 33 (Cont’d) coo. Hoco oooo. ccc. Homo coco. ccc. .oco ooco. oco. occo coco. occ. Hoco ocoo. coo. Hoco ocoo. oco. ooco coco. ccc. occo ocoo. NmONmHm um um um um um ll HQ. H no H coo. no .oco H coco. ccc. n Aoco H oooo. ccc. n Aoco H coco. oco. n Hooo H coco. coo. n occo H coco. occ. no Acco H oooo. ccc. n Hcco cooo. s—v ccc. no Homo H occo. “memmom coo. no occo H coco. ccc. no occo H occo. coo. no ooco H coco. ccc. no Hcco H oooo. ccc. n ooco H coco. c_c. n Ammo H coco. coo. no Hcco H ooco. coo. no Hoco H coco. cmammom coo. no occo H occc. coo. no .oco H coco. ccc. no occo H coco. ccc. no Hoco H oooo. ccc. no oooo H cooo. oco. no Hoco H coco. ccc. no ooco H coco. coc. no Hoco H coco. wvommom coo. no occo H coco. ccc. no Acco H ooco. ccc. no occo H coco. ccc. no .coo H coco. coc. no Hoco H coco. coc. no Aoco H oooo. cco. no oooo H coco. ccc. no ooco H coco. accomoo coo. n oooo ocoo. w ccc. no .ooo H ooco. II D- oco. Hooo ooco. H ccc. no ooco H ocoo. ccc. no oooo H coco. oco. no occo H coco. ccc. no occo H coco. coo. no .emm Hx‘ «mam. ovomm_m omo. no o co H oooc. ccc. no occo H oooc. ccc. ooco H coco. II On ccc. Hoco oooo. ll HQ. occ. Homo H coco. u a. oco. .oco H coco. II a. occ. ooco H coco. ll 0. ccc. no Ammo H coco. ovommfim oco. n Homo H coco. oco. no Acco H oooo. oco. no Homo H coco. coo. Hoco H cooo. II a. oco. no occo H coco. coo. um ooco H coco. oco. no oooo H coco. oco. no Aoco H coco. mvoammm oco. no Homo coco. v ccc. no .oco H coco. oco. no ooco H coco. oco. no ooco H coco. ccc. no Hoco H coco. oco. no ooco H coco. ccc. no Hcco H oooo. oco. no ooco H oocc. vQONmfim --noozoocooooco zooccccoooc cococoo-- ooo-oo .oH cc .o .oxoco cccozcoooooc coczoxmo ozoxc mzoococcooOooocZo men. no ococzummz occo H \ococooco oooc. oooooco ccc. no cocoocoooo .oco H H.ocoooco oco.. cocoooo coo. no oooooscooo $3 Hocszas oco.. cocoooo ccc. no ocooooooooc oooo H H.oooccocc coco. cocoooo ccc. no oooocoocc Hooo H Hoccocoocooo coco. ooooooo coo. no oumooooxu Acco H Hoooooooco cooo. oooocoo ccc. no cocooooooco .ooo H \.oooococc cooo. cocoooo ccc. no ccommococo zoo H 2.383“; coon. cocoooo mcommco JZti) TABLE 33 (Cont’d) ccc. Hcco oooo. ll HQ. ccc. n Hoco H oooo. coc. n Homo H coco. ccc. no Hoco H coco. ccc. no Hoco H coco. ccc. no Hcco H ocoo. ccc. no Hoco coco. w oco. no Hoco H coco. mmOmmHm ccc. n Homo H coco. oco. no Homo H coco. oco. no Homo H coco. ccc. no Hoco H oooo. ccc. no Hoco H coco. ccc. Hoco coco. ll HQ. ccc. no Hoco H oooc. coc. no Homo H coco. HmonHm ccc. no Hcco H coco. coo. no Hooo H coco. ccc. n Homo H oooo. ccc. no Hoco H coco. ccc. no Hoco H coco. ccc. Homo coco. II was. ccc. n Hcco H coco. ccc. no Hcco H occo. omOmmHm H oco. um coo. um Hcco H Hcoo H coco. coco. ccc. no ccc. n Hoco H Hoco H coco. oooo. occ. no coo. no Hooo H Homo H coco. coco. oco. no ccc. no Hcco H Hooo H cooo. coco. ccc. no oco. no Hcco H Hoco H occo. oco.. coo. no ccc. no Hooo H Hoco H coco. coco. ccc. no ccc. no Hoco H Hoco H coco. coco. occ. no ccc. no Hoco H Hoco H coco. cooo. meOmmHm meommHm I! G- ccc. Hoco H coco. ccc. no Hoco H oooc. ccc. no Hoco H ocoo. occ. no Hoco H oooo. ccc. no Hoco H coco. u G. coo. Hcco H oooo. ccc. Hoco H coco. II On ccc. no Hoco H oooo. HVONmHm coo. Hoco ocoo. II “a. ccc. no Hoco H cooo. coc. Hoco H coco. ll Ono ccc. no Hoco H oocc. coo. Hoco H coco. II D.- occ. no Hoco H coco. ccc. no Homo H coco. ccc. no Homo H on coco. meomem ooo. no Hcco H coco. ccc. n Hoco H coco. coo. n Homo H coco. ccc. no .coo H coco. ccc. no Hoco H coco. cog. um Hcoo H coco. oco. no Homo H oooo. coo. no Hoco H oooo. meONmHm .ooo H cccc._ ccc. no Hcco H coco. ccc. no Hoco H coco. ccc. no Homo H coco. ccc. no Hooo H ocoo. ccc. no Homo H coco. oco. no Homo H coco. ccc. no Hoco H coco. vvoamHm . - m a z u H u H m m m o u z o H a c H m a m o u z o m m g m m I . Hoo-co .oH HH .q .mzmeH HcHazmmmmmHa quzczum uzox¢ monFHHHHHOumszH ccc. no oocoo: Hoco H Hoocooaco coco. cocooco . no cocoococc Hooo H \mccoocccooc cccc.o cocoooo ccc. no ocooocomcoc Hoco H Ho..omooocc coco. ocooooo coo. no ccoooco Hoco H -coocHoooc oooo. cocoooo ccc. no omocoo Hoco H Homocooooc coco. cocoooo ccc. no coococco Hoco H Hoocooococc coco. cocoooo ooc. no moocooo Hoco H Hooocooooo coco. cococoo cco. no ccoooooc Hooo H Hoocnccooco oco.. oooocoo cocoooo 2151 TABLE 33 (Cont’d) Hcco H cccc.o ccc. no Hcco H ocoo. oco. no Hoco H ococ. ccc. no Hcco H occo. coc. no Hoco H coco. ccc. no Hcco H coco. ccc. n Hoco H coco. ccc. no Hoco H oco.. mmOmmHm II n. ccc. Hoco H coco. . no Hcco H cccc.o occ. no Hoco H coco. ccc. n Hoco H coco. ccc. n Hoco H coco. ccc. no Hoco H coco. ccc. no Hoco H ocoo. ccc. no Hcco H coco. HmONmHm oco. Hcco ocoo. ccc. Hoco coco. occo cccc. ccc. Hoco coco. ccc. Hoco ccoo. ccc. Hoco cooo. ooc. Hoco cccc. oco. Hoco coco. no H H 0.. um um no H omOmmHm H ccc. no Hcco H ooco. coc. no .o Hcco H coco. ccc. no Hcco H coco. Hcco H ccoc._ ccc. no Hoco H coco. oco. Hcco H coco. ll 0.. coo. no Hcco occc. H coo. no Hoco H coco. vammHm ccc. no Hoco H coon. oco. no Hcco H coco. occ. no Hcco H ccoc. oco. no Hoco H coco. Hoco H cccc.c ccc. no Hcco H coco. ccc. no Hcco H ccoc. oco. no Hcco H coco. meOmmHm ccc. n Hoco H coco. ccc. no Hoco H coco. coo. no Hoco H cooo. ccc. no Hcco H coco. ccc. Hcco coco. H “A. Hoco H cccc.o I! O.- ccc. Hoco ooco. H ccc. no Hoco H coon. ovommHm ccc. no occo H coco. coo. n Hoco H ooco. ccc. n Hcco H cccc. oco. n Hcco H occc. ccc. no Hoco H ccoc. ccc. no Hcco H ocoo. Hcco H cccc.c ooc. no Hcco H o. oooo. ovoamHm occ. Hoco H coco. II D- II On ccc. Hoco coco. w occ. no Hcco H coco. coo. Hoco coco. ~_.£L cac. no Hcco H coco. ccc. Hoco H coon. II D- occ. no Hcco H ococ. . no Hcco H cccc.o chmmHm oco. no Hoco H cooo. coo. no ..co H coco. oco. n Hoco H .ccc. ccc. Hoco coco. ~——AL ccc. no Hoco H coco. ccc. no Hcco H coco. oco. no Hoco oco.. U ooc. no Hoco H coco. ¢vo~mHm mazmHuHmmmou onscammm0u zommcmmuu Hoc-oo .oH oo .o .oxooc ccocccoooocc cooccxoc czoxc ocooccooooococcco no ccocoocooc ccc. Hoco H H.ocooooccc oooo. ocooooo ccc. no ococoocoo ..co H Hoocccc coco. cocoooo ccc. no cocoooooocc Hoco H \c.oocoooccc oco.. cooocco oco. no coccoo Hmco H HoaaoomoH coco. cocoooo cco. no ocoococ Hoco H Hooooccccc cooo. cocoooo ccc. no cooco Hoco H Hooocccc oooo. cocooco ccc. no coco Hoco H Hoccox coco. cocooco ccc. no ooooooo :co H Hocccoooco coco. 98o: cocooco 262 APPENDIX 8 FIGURE 37 NATIONAL! FOR JOB CHOICE: CANDIDATE A (AVERAGE-WEIGHT HALE CANDIDATE) 263 CANDIDATE A: JOB HIRE & WHY l.-NH: ”Would not stay on the job long after training period was completed. " (MO) 2. -NH: "Did not appear very confident, not sure how receptive others would be, not management material." (SC, WS) 3. “NI-I: ”Did not come across as a positive eandidate for my type of company. I need ENERGETIC people!!!” (MO) 4.--NH: "Does not seem to have training/analytic skills/exp. for job A [Human Resource Benefits analyst]. He does not strike me as a potential sales rep—no ’charisma. ’ He doesn’t seem to have the skills/experience for a management trainee—or the ambition. " (WS, PE, WE, MO) 5.-NH: "His presentation did not address his abilities. He kept repeating his schooling and gave very little reference to his job training and skills." (CS, WS) 6.--NH: ”The video related he spent 1 1/2 years in South America after his undergraduate degree however the written resume contradicts this. " (MK) 7 .-NH: "Although MBA is earned, has no experience to fulfill job expectations.” (WE) 8.-NH: "Does not stand or "lean” tall. Does not look professional (no suit)." (AP, AP) CANDIDATE A: NH RESPONSES ”Knowledge/Skills/Abilities“ (Factors ED,CS,LS,TR,WE,WS): 6 items (43% of 14 responses) "Personality/Interpersonal” (Factors FR ,,IS MO, PE ,SC): 5 items (36% of 14 responses) 0! ' 11H .' 71'. ‘1 n .‘ s" 51.1. 11001: '1 o W CANDIDATE A: JOB HIRE & WHY l.--HRB: "I don’t think he has enough background for the other two. A salesperson would be the next choice. If he came across as more aggressive, I would give him a chance at sales. " (PE) 2.-HRB: "Because of the need for analytical skills, with a need for the ability to work independently.“ (WS) 3.-—HRB: ”He hasn’t stayed at any one job for very long. He didn’t state what his goals are or that he wished for a career." (WE) 4.--I-IRB: ”Appears to have a better background as an analyst. To (sic) mechanical to be a sales representative. I would need additional information to make him a management trainee.”(WE, PE) 5.-HRB: "I believe this man has potential but I’m not convinced that he should be in a position higher than [this one]. There’s a lot missing about this man and his work history. " (WE) FIGURE 37 RATIONALE FOR JOB CHOICE: CANDIDATE A 264 6.-HRB: ”Previous experience with data collection. Can work alone if necessary. Has experience with planning. " (WE) 7.-HRB: ”Not enough people oriented for [sales rep.] or [mgmt. trainee]. Too dependable and qualified not to hire at all. " (PE, WE) 8.-HRB: 'I think he is able to handle working independently. He seems capable of developing reports and review cost data, based on his schooling and work experience. " (W 8) 9.-HRB: ”Because of his background experiences. He doesn’t come across as managerial material. " (WE) lO.-HRB: ”He seems more detail-oriented, more of an introvert, and more prone to follow directions than make them. He doesn’t impress me as a very dynamic, motivated person.“ (PE, MO) ll.-I-IRB (No comments) 12.-I-IRB: ”He has to read from cue cards his abilities and assets. To me this displays less confidence in his ability to speak appropriately, perhaps without making mistakes. He is probably a perfectionist and would do his job very well." (SC, CS, PE) 13. «HRB: ”Sales require direct eye contact. Tape did not show this. May require more "people” skills. Why hasn’t he used Spanish since so many business (sic) need this skill today?" (CS, IS, WS) l4.-—HRB (No comments) 15.--HRB: ”Leaned on table-passive. No coat--unprofessional. " (PE, AP) l6.-HRB: "Capable but not enthusiastic, or outgoing enough for sale (sic) and management in large company. " (PE) l7.-HRB: "I wouldn’t hire him for a position of responsibility or a position that may lead to upper management because he may leave after a year or two. " (WE) 18.-HRB: ”I perceive Mr. Anderson to be somewhat of an introvert that would perform well in a position of an independent nature. His background suggests that he may have the analytical skills necessary for the position.“ (PE, WS) CANDIDATE A: HRB POSITION RESPONSES 'Knowledge/Sldlls/Abilities" (Factors ED,CS,LS,TR,WE,WS): 12 items (48% of 25 responses) ”Personality/Interpersonal” (Factors FR, IS, MO, PE ,:SC) 12 items (48% of 25 responses) W MW CANDIDATE A: JOB HIRE & WHY 1.--SR: ”Travel experience-customer relations experience. Past ability to analyze customer credit. " (TR, WE) 2.—SR: "He likes travel and from previous job and educational experience seems qualified. " (TR, WE) FIGURE 37 (Cont’d) 265 3.--SR: ”Outgoing personality; good communication. " (PE, CS) 4.--SR: ”He has already held a management position and has had experience in many areas. He seems like an aggressive young man who could win new clients and then move into management. " (WE, PE) 5.--SR: "Likely has an ability to deal with people in new surroundings given travel and job experience." (TR, WE) 6.--SR: (No Comments) 7.-SR: "Because of his education and work experience and he likes to travel.” (ED, WE, TR) 8.-SR: “Experience as a sales representative. Good appearance for representation. Minor in marketing.” (WE, AP, ED) 9.-SR: "He has experience in the area and it allows for promotion. He seems to like to change jobs." (WE) 10.-—SR: "This job requires extensive travel, which Mr. Anderson enjoys. Also, he has been responsible for customer relations in his current job. He has both management and marketing experience.” (TR, WE) 11. -SR: "Qualified to represent company to many people. Would be a great employee. Lacks leadership qualities." (WE, WS) 12.-«SR: "I feel Leslie would possess sharpened interpersonal skills since he has had experience in Sales and also with his wide variety of travel. He seems well organized and self-modivated (sic)." (18, WE, TR, MO) 13.-SR: ”Has shown ability and success in a number of different duties. He is use (sic) to traveling and being in contact with many different people and communicating with them." (WE, TR, CS) 14.--SR: ”His educational background, sales experience, and broad variety of other experiences qualifies him for the job demands." (ED, WE) 15.--SR: ”He has worked as a sales representative, and he has traveled some. " (WE, TR) l6.--SR: ”Likes to travel, knows Spanish and other cultures.” (TR) 17.--SR: (No comment) 18.--SR: ”He seems to have the necessary skills to deal in a wide range of sales areas if necessary. With his fluency in Spanish along with past experience I believe this is where he would excel both for himself and the company.” (WS, LS, WE) l9.--SR: ”Good speaking skill, confident.” (CS, SC) 20.-SR: "Prior sales experience, minor in marketing. Sales position would give him opportunity to ”show what he’s made of” and clear up any uncertainties about hIs questionable work history. " (WE,ED) 21.--SR: "He emphasized his communications skills and his understanding of Spanish language and culture, skills that most fit this area.” (CS, LS) 22.--SR: ”Because of background work experience. He speaks well and the diversity of a second language is an asset.” (WE, CS, LS) FIGURE 37 (Cont’d) 266 23.--SR: ”Because he appears to be a salesperson and is able to communicate on a business level.” (WE, CS) 24.-SR: "Likes to travel, knows area of central and South America. Knows control and spreadsheets.” (TR, WS) 25 .--SR: '1 would recommend him for Sales Representative because of his background as a sales rep. Also, this position requires extensive travel which the candidate is use (sic) to. His second language is a plus. I feel he has the ability to communicate.” (WE, TR, LS, CS) 26.--SR: ”Has traveled, worked in sales inviorment (sic). Want to see if he would stick with it. " (TR) 27.--SR: "Articulate, has traveled, appears to be adventuresome.” (CS, TR, PE) 28.--SR: "Brings good skills, hard worker, self motivating, educated, good appearance and presentation.” (WS, MO, ED, AP) 29.-SR: ”Has previous experience. Potential for growth. Can prove himself in this position.” (WE, MO) 30.-SR: (No comments) 3l.--SR: "Varied background; experience. " (WE) 32.-SR (See comments below,dual entry, combined SR & MT) CANDIDATE A: SR RESPONSES "Knowledge/Skills/Abilities” (Factors ED,CS,LS,TR,WE,WS): 54 items (82% of 66 responses) ”Personality/Interpersonal" (Factors FR,IS,MO,PE,SC): 8 items (12% of 66 items) . l .. ° ‘ a) j ' 0 0. f h‘l 1‘ i . 'xl-Hf-H {'1‘3010l 1° ,. W CANDIDATE A: JOB HIRE & WHY l.--MT: ”He’s not outgoing enough for sales. I think he would be able to move up thru the ranks if given the opportunity." (PE, MO) 2.--MT: ”Leslie could be tested for other positions. " (0TH) 3.--MT: "I feel after he is in this firm he can make it in upper management.” (0TH) 4.--MT: "Motivated, desires to advance. Appears to be an individual who could be a leader.” (MO, WS) 5 .«MT: ”Mr. Anderson has a variety of work experiences and college background that would make him an asset to the company. He appears self-motivated and has had a lot of public contact." (WE, ED, MO) 6.--MT: ”His education and his experience seem to fit this profile.” (ED, WE) 7.--MT: ”Most qualified--previous background, hard worker. " (WE, MO) 8.--SR & MT: ”His willingness to travel, [h]is past experience.” (TR, WE) FIGURE 37 (Cont’d) 267 9.-MT (No comments) 10.-MT (No comments) ll.-MT: "His varied background would complement the trainee program, and the program would focus his strengths. He did not seem to have the energy I would look for in a sales representative. The HRB analyst position would limit his potential benefit to the company. " (WE) 12.--MT: "Appears well educated, focused, and motivated. " (ED, MO) l3.--MT: ”He has the qualifications; time will tell if the qualifications turn into productive work. "(W S) CANDIDATE A: MT RESPONSES ”Knowledge/Skills/Abilities" (Factors ED,CS,LS,TR,WE,WS): 11 items (65% of 17 responses) “Personality/Interpersonal” (Factors FR,IS,MO,PE,SC): 6 items (35% of 17 responses) OTHER: No responses Appearance: 0 Responses FIGURE 37 (Cont’d) 268 APPENDIX F FIGURE 38 RATIONALE FOR JOB CHOICE: CANDIDATE B (AVERAGE-WEIGHT FEMALE CANDIDATE) 269 CANDIDATE B: JOB HIRE & WHY l.-NH: "Cant tell based on ”brief” video interview“ (OTH) 2.-NH: ”For human resources & management trainee she is not qualified enough, and for the position of a sales representative she does not have enough communication skills. " (WS, CS) 3.--NH: ”There was no two-way conversations to ask questions about any of the positions or requirements. " (OTH) 4.-NH: ”I get the impression that a position offered to her at this point would not be long-lasting. I would be concerned that time and training would be wasted due to her need to travel and experience new employment opportunities. " (MO, TR) 5.--NH: "I’m not satisfied that she would be able to satisfactorily fulfill the needs of the jobs listed. She doesn’t seem to have much ambition. She also doesn’t remain in a job position for long periods of time. " (MO) 6.--NH: "I did not get a true feeling of the individual. The video tape did not provide any insight to the person. All information on the video was provided, and I felt the video was meant to impress me. I had no strong feelings.” (OTH) 7 .-NH : "She does not fit into a job due to her stability of previous employment history, lack of specific experience in hiring for the 3 positions.” (WE) 8.-NH: "Her video didn’t show me enough. What it did show was not overly impressive. " (OTH) 9.--NH: ”The video didn’t tell me enough about her to tell me what she is good at doing. " (OTH) 10.--NH: ”Her qualifications don’t seem to match any job openings offered.” (WS) ll.-NH: ”Would need to check references & previous employers. Not enough information to hire on video & resume alone. " (OTH) 12.--NI-I: ”I just wasn’t impressed. They are as many exciting, stimulating people that want to be hired. She didn’t stir me at all.” (OTH) l3.--NH: ”For A - If no potential for promotion will decline or quit job; Not enough experience - not friendly enough appearance for Sales Rep. " (MO, WE, FR) l4.-NH: ”There are better candidates out there. She would not be self directed & not dynamic enough to be into sales or management. She also needs to smile.” (MO, PR) 15 .--NH: '1 did not get a great 1st impression of this individual. I could not judge her personality, I would have to have more information. I would want a feeling on her emotions, interpersonal skills, etc.” (PE, IS) 16.-NH: "None of the strengths needed for these positions really stand out in her interview. " (W S) l7.-NH: ”No fit with demonstrated skills; no (sic) a ‘shaker’." (WS, MO) l8.--NH: "I do not feel [she is a] person who will work hard and stick with job; may quit in 2 months to go to Europe.” (MO, TR) FIGURE 38 RATIONALE FOR JOB CHOICE: CANDIDATE B 270 CANDIDATE B: NH RESPONSES 'Knowledge/Skills/Abilities" (Factors CS,ED,LS,TR,WE,WS): 9 items (34.6% of 26 items) "Personality/Interpersonal” (Factors FR,IS,MO,PE, SC): 10 items (38.5% of 26 CANDIDATE B: JOB HIRE & WHY l.-HRB: (No comments) 2.-HRB: ”Best suited to skills, education, experience” (WS,ED, WE) 3.--HRB: ”Her travel would be beneficial to the Sales Representative job but she lacks the ‘high paced’ attitude. She may be better working alone at her own pace. " (TR, MO) 4.-HRB: “Although she has some managerial background, she has more positions that are just business oriented. Also, she had prior experience as an credit analyst which could be useful in human resources." (WS, WE) 5.--HRB: "Proven analytical skills" (WS) 6.-HRB: ”Seems to like, detail work.” (sic) (OTH) 7.-HRB: ”She’s proven she can manage a store/she seems best if she’s alone in her job. " (WE, OTH) 8.-—HRB: (No comments) . 9.--HRB: "Appearance (dress comment made earlier) not articulate enough to warrant 2 higher level jobs, GPA not high enough to be competitive w/other candidates.” (AP, CS, ED) lO.-HRB: "Even though Leslie had extensive education and had experience with travel her presentation skills and appearance did not lend credibility to the Sales Representative position. Although motivated I feel she was not what was needed for a management trainee. Therefore chose Human Resources." (ED, WE, CS, AP) 11.-—HRB: ”Employment varied & unspecific. Candidate seems quite employable, but unsure of goal. Candidate is confident in her ability. She doesn’t seem overly enthusiastic.” (WE, SC, MO) 12.-HRB: ”Her experience and character seem to be prone to analysis rather than people interaction. " (WE, PE) l3.--HRB: "Past history." (OTH) l4.--HRB: ”I think she would be better with less contact of people." (IS) 15.-HRB: ”Think she has the kind of personality that would better suit her to be behind the scenes versus dealing with the public on a regular basis." (PE) CANDIDATE B: HRB RESPONSES 'Knowledge/Skills/Abilities" (Factors CS,ED,LS,TR,WE,WS): 13, items (56.5% of 23 items total) "Personality/Interpersonal” (Factors FR,IS,MO,PE, SC): 5 items (15.2% of 23 items total) FIGURE 38 (Cont’d) 271 Other: 3 items (13% of total) Appearance: 2 Items (8.7% of total) CANDIDATE B: JOB HIRE & WHY l.-SR: (No comments) 2.-—SR: ”Definitely has the qualification for this job and should be in a higher level job, starting off or a sales rep. may help her gain more confidence and grow more into the company.” (WE, SC) 3.-SR: "She has been a sales representative before and if she has to travel she has another language she can use." (WE, TR, LS) 4.--SR: "She seems capable, straight forward & aggressive." (WS, PE) 5.-SR: "Travel, spanish, marketing degree” (TR, LS, ED) CANDIDATE B: JOB HIRE 8: WHY 6.-SR: ”She would enjoy the travel and customer contacts. She has had some sales experience. " (TR, WE) 7.-SR: (No comments) 8.-SR: ”She has experience with this area. And seems to be articulate. She enjoys travel." (WE, CS, TR) 9.--SR: "Work experience - traveled - seems to enjoy new experiences" (WE, TR) lO.--SR: ”Mainly because of the travel experience which the job will entail and the fact that she worked as a sales rep." (TR, WE) ll.-SR: (no comment) 12.-SR: ”Experience with people, could move up." (IS) 13.-SR: ”She lives to travel.” (TR) 14.-SR: ”I think her international experience along with her desire to meet and learn about different people and cultures would be a benefit for these positions. " (TR) 15.-SR: ”Great communication skills." (CS) 16.-SR: ”Travel experience, good impression, articulate” (TR, CS) l7.--SR: ”Language skills" (LS) 18.-SR: "She has the experience needed. She is well traveled." (WE, TR) 19.—SR: "She appears ambitious, hardworking, able to do the job. She has experience and has traveled, she has had management skills as a boss, she loves to travel. " (MO, TR, WE, WS ) 20.-SR: ”She is qualified, but does not have the necessary skills for Management Trainee. I feel she may advance given time - guidance. " (OTH) 21.-SR: ”She seems to have alot of background in working with other individuals.” (WE) 22.-SR: (no comment) FIGURE 38 (Cont’d) 272 23.-SR: ”She is more talented then dead-end human resources benefit job. She doesn’t have enough experience for management trainee position. Sales Representative sounds good because she seems outgoing, confident, and she likes to travel.” (FR, SC, TR, WE) 24.-SR: "She knows how to persuade.” (CS) 25.-SR: ”She has experience with people. She’s traveled.” (WE, TR) 26.-SR: ”She has had experience in many of the duties already. She enjoys travel, so it wouldn’t be a problem. " (WE, TR) 27 .--SR: ”She’s prior experience. " (sic) (WE) 28.-SR: ”I was not overly impressed with Leslie, but she is apparently a hard worker and is wiling to travel and explore new experiences. " (MO, TR) CANDIDATE B: JOB HIRE & WHY: SR RESPONSES: 'Knowledge/Skills/Abilities" (Factors CS,ED,LS,TR,WE,WS): 38 items (82.6% of 46 items total) ”Personality/Interpersonal" (Factors FR,IS,MO,PE, SC): 7 items (15.2% of 46 items total) CANDIDATE B: JOB HIRE & WHY l.--MT: ”She comes across as a strong leader.” (WS) 2.--MT: ”Lacks energy and enthusiasm levels required for sales (as well as appearance and adequate experience), does not have experience working with people in a management capacity for human resources position but has the education for management trainee." (MO, AP, WE, ED) 3.--MT: ”Her job background and education and her presentation lead me to believe if trained right she could be a value.” (WE, ED, OTH) 4.-MT: ”She seems to have experience in most of the areas needed to qualify for the Management Trainee, and the challenge of a new position with some new areas always helps to bring out the best in any honest working employee. " (WE, MO) 5.-MT: ”I would recommend that Leslie be hired in as a Management Trainee because of her past experience. She has been a store manager, payroll clerk, etc. . .and this experience is a plus for her. She should be put into the Management position at least as a trainee. " (WE) 6.-MT: ”She has experience in many departments, and it would useful to match her with the job she does best. I wouldn’t hire her for the sales representative because she seems lack the energy and zip needed to create enthusiam for a product.” (WE, MO) FIGURE 38 (Cont’d) 273 7.-MT: "She can be assisted more, and has to ability to progress in the organization.” (0TH) 8.-MT: "Language skills, education” (LS, FD) 9.-MT: (no comments) lO.-MT: "Experience with people, travel, language, she must be aggressive to make video" (IS, TR, LS, MO) ll.-MT: “Her former experience and background lends itself to the varied responsibilities of sales representatives. " (sic) (WE) 12.-MT: ”Confident about self.” (SC) 13.-MT: "Seems confident.” (SC) l4.-MT: "I think her international experience along with her desire to meet and learn about different people and cultures would be a benefit for these positions. " (TR) 15.-MT: "Not enough personality for sales rep too good for analyst.“ (PE, OTH) 16.-MT: “It’s hard to say where she might do best. Her education & experience could be used somewhere." (ED, WE) 17.--MT: ”Good communication skills, MBA degree.” (CS, ED) l8.--MT: ”Has some previous management experience & understanding of business finance. " (WE, WS) l9.--MT: "I thinks she’s qualified, unsure of communication skills, however desires a chance. Resume shows experience dealing with other management & retailers. " (CS, WE) 20.-MT: ”Will have opportunity to work in various areas; Don’t feel she is outgoing enough to be sales rep.” (FR) 21 .--MT: ”Education & experience lends her a favorable candidate for this role. " (ED, WE) 22.--MT: ”Past work experiences and schooling appears to have interest in people. " (WE, ED, IS) 23.-MT: "Business and language/cultural expertise could be very valuable as Latin markets open up to U.S. firms." (WE, LS) 24.--MT: "Because she has management experience. " (WE) 25.--MT: ”Little Sales Exp. (B); H.R.B.A. appears beyond her experience and possibly her Educ. too; Mgmt. Trainee seems better at her varied exp. & educ.” (sic) (WE, ED) CANDIDATE B: MT RESPONSES "Knowledge/Sldlls/Abilities" (Factors CS,ED,LS,TR,WE,WS): 31 items (68.9% of 45 items total) ”Personality/Interpersonal” (Factors FR,IS,MO,PE, SC): 10 items (22.2% of 45 items total) Other: 3 items (6.7% of total) Appearance: 1 Response (2.2% of total) FIGURE 38 (Cont’d) 274 APPENDIX G FIGURE 39 RATIONALE FOR JOB CHOICE: CANDIDATE C (OVERWEIGHT MALE CANDIDATE) 275 CANDIDATE C: Job Hire & Why 1.-NH: "From what I would think would be a large number of applicants he didn’t stand out. " (OTH) 2.--NH: "No mention of people relationships in the workplace - any job needs that element.” (IS) 3.-NH: 'Do not have enough information - would check references. " (OTH) 4.-NH: "I think he wouldn’t stay with the firm long enough to be productive or an asset to the company.” (MO) 5.--NH: ”Not agressive enough, or ambitious enough. " (PE, MO) 6. «NH: '1 would not hire on the bases(sic) of just the resume and video. It was too impersonal. An interview in person, and answers to my questions would let me decide for sure". (OTH) . CANDIDATE C: NH RESPONSES «Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 0 items. «Combining FR, IS, MO, PE, SC (”Personality/Interpersonal" factor) yields 4 items (57% of 7 items) --"Other" yields 3 items (43% of 7 items) --Appearance yields 0 items. CANDIDATE C: JOB HIRE & WHY 1.-HRB: "Lacks People Skills." (IS) 2.--HRB: ”Has some good qualities. Seems to not be a people person.” (IS) 3.--HRB: "Best suits his background.” (OTH) 4.-HRB: ”Good communications skills, would work well with others. Possibly a good 'Simpathetic(sic) ear” for other HR functions." (CS, IS) 5.-HRB: (no comments) 6.-l-IRB: ”Can collect data, but would not deal w/public or upper management. He probably won’t have the position long anyway, based on his history. But, he could get the area organized.” (WS) 7.-—HRB: ”He seems like an analyst more than an manager or salesman.” (WS) 8.--HRB: "Has worked as analyst, may have promise, but you really can’t tell from only his video. If he is getting an MBA there must be more to him, and is probably worth starting at this job.” (OTH) FIGURE 39 RATIONALE FOR JOB CHOICE: CANDIDATE C 276 9.«HRB: ”Put him away from people & let him do a job.” (OTH) lO.«HRB: ”He has the background but is not assertive enough to qualify for any other. I felt poor interview to send no movement eye contact (sic). His lack of Man experience in any area.” (WE, PE) 11.«HRB: ”Experience with computers & books.“ (WE) 12.«HRB: ”He didn’t seem to have the personality to work with & meet alot of people. Seemed like he would be more comfortable alone as in a small group.“ (PE) 13.«HRB: “He seemed to lack interpersonal skills needed in the other 2 positions but did seem competent for the analyst position. " (IS) l4.«HRB: ”The man appears talk oriented, he has worked in office or data related environments and could in any opinion work independently. " (WE, WS) 15.«HRB: "Seems would be comfortable working alone and would be satisfied with united promotion potential (sic). " (PE) l6.«HRB: (no comments) l7«HRB: ”At this point, he doesn’t seem to have the drive or ambition to do what the other jobs require. I also question his people skills based on the videotape, I think he is lacking in this area.” (MO, 18) CANDIDATE C: HRB RESPONSES «Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 7 items (36.8% of 19 items) «Combining FR, IS, MO, PE, SC (”Personality/Interpersonal” factor) yields 9 items (47.4% of 19 items) «"Other' yields 3 items (15.8%); Appearance yields 0 items. CANDIDATE C: JOB HIRE & WHY 1.«SR: "Because of his work history.” (WE) 2.«SR: ”I don’t really see anything else to put him in.“ (OTH) 3.«SR: ”The subject demonstrated good base communication skills. Past employment history indicates background in customer relations and previous sales experience. Willingness to travel abroad demonstrates independence, initiating and an openess(sic) to new or different challenges.” (CS, WE, PE, MO) 4.«SR: ”Looks like he could be a talker. Appears to be social - perhaps suited for sales. " (WS) 5.«SR: ”Qualifications seem to best fit this area.” (OTH) 6.«SR: ”His oral communication skills & his education.” (CS, ED) 7.«SR: "His qualities of discipline, motivation and communication would serve him well in this position.” (PE, MO, CS) FIGURE 39 (Cont’d) 277 8.«SR: "Due to previous sales experience and desire to travel. " (WE, TR) 9.--SR: "He has sales rep. experience - He seems very outgoing, so he can communicate with customers easily - He seems to enjoy traveling, which is part of the rep. job.” (WE, FR, TR) 10.«SR: "Loves to travel, interact with people, & persue(sic) challenges. ”(TR, IS, MO) ll.«SR: ”Leslie is a good talker and likes to travel.” (CS, TR) 12.«SR: ”Pleasant, educated. Make good first impression for company. Intelligent. " (PE, ED, OTH) 13.«SR: ”Because of the travel, and the diversity associated with the position.” (TR) 14.«SR: ”Travel, customer contact, client pursuit, good personality, speaks Spanish."(TR, WE, PE, LS) 15.«SR: ”Customer & sales background, varied experience related to people, independence shown by year in South America. " (WE, PE) l6.«SR: ”Because of marketing background.” (ED) l7.«SR: ”Best fits his prior work experiences.” (WE) 18.«SR: "Knowledge of travel, vast experiences with people." (TR, WE) 19.«SR: ”He has worked in sales before - His minor is in marketing.” (WE, ED) 20.«SR: ”Didn’t strike me as above average individual - to handle positions, but would try him out here.” (OTH) 2l.«SR: ”His background suggests this is the type of work he sought out." (WE) 22.«SR: "He has traveled in past & is rotated through different jobs like he did before.” (TR. 0TH) 23.«SR: ”Fluency during interview.” (CS) 24.«SR: "I see Leslie using his Spanish background to help in forming relations in our company. 130 this position will give him an opportunity to experience and learn what our company is about. Then I see him advancing to Management Trainee.“ (LS, OTH) 25.«SR: ”Didn’t display enough confidence for "fast track" Would function well with middle management job." (SC, OTH) CANDIDATE C: JOB HIRE & WHY 26.«SR: ”As South America, Mexico, and central America become part of North American Free Trade agreement." (sic) (OTH) 27.«SR: "I would consider him for one of these 2 positions. I would need to talk with him longer to determine which one. Sales - traveling experience, Sales rep in 1985-6 Management - has had experience in a variety of jobs. " (WE) 28.«SR: (no comments) 29.«SR: “He may move to management trainee but from the video his appearance and relaxed attitude would call for a interview. " (AP, PE) 30.«SR: ”He seems to be able to communicate. Outgoing and would enjoy meeting and talking to people. Doesn’t mind traveling. Use this job as a stepping stone to management possibley (sic). " (CS, FR, IS, TR) FIGURE 39 (Cont’d) 278 CANDIDATE C: SR RESPONSES «Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 33 items (58.9% of 56 items) «Combining FR, IS, MO, PE, SC (”Personality/Interpersonal” factor) yields 13 items (23.2% of 56 items) MW 1 item (1.8%). CANDIDATE C: JOB HIRE & WHY 1.«MT: ”Needs more experience.” (WE) 2.«MT: ”Based on Anderson’s experience and education, I think he would be able to handle the position and be a valuable asset.” (WE, ED) 3.«MT: (no comments) 4.«MT: "Well rounded — give him a shot.” (WE) 5.«MT: (no comments) 6.--MT: & SR: ”Seems like a capable individual that has experience.” (WS, WE) 7.«MT: ”Suits training & Experience & Education.” (WE, ED) 8.«MT: “Seems very flexible and eager.“ (PE) 9.«MT: "Has held management position, has been exposed to other field. Probably a able learner.” (sic) (WE, MO) 10.«MT: ”Does appear qualified for manegerial(sic) tasks in some of the departments mentioned could be a valuable asset. " (WS) ll.«MT: ”Ed. background - variety of work experiences incl. store layout (sales a consideration as well as efficiency), data and record keeping expertise (would be aware of and able to supervise) experience in inter-personal relations (sales and training experience - travel.” (ED, WE, WS, IS) 12.«MT: “His vast, yet numerous previous positions would allow him flexibility within the company & could assist him in deciding permanent position.” (WE) l3.«MT: "Has good business background, not sure about interpesonal(sic) skills need to see where he’d best fit.” (WE, IS) 14.«MT: ”He seems to be self motavated(sic), and somewhat agressive. His Spanish may help him when dealing with suppliers. He is very articulate.” (MO, PE, LS, CS) 15.«MT: ”I see potential but would not want to be locked in with this applicant. I would WWW " (0TH1 CANDIDATE C: MT RESPONSES «Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 17 items (70.8% of 24) «Combining FR, IS, MO, PE, SC (”Personality/Interpersonal” factor) yields 6 items (25% of 24 items) --"Other" yields 1 item (4.2%); Appearance yields 0 items. FIGURE 39 (Cont’d) 279 APPENDIX H FIGURE 40 RATIONALE FOR JOB CHOICE: CANDIDATE D (OVERWEIGHT FEMALE CANDIDATE) 280 CANDIDATE D: JOB HIRE & WHY: NH RESPONSES 1.«NH: ”Would need to find out more about the person to make a decision on hiring. " (0TH) 2.«NH: ”Not appearing very self directive or confident.” (MO, SC) 3.«NH: ”She lacks the qualification to feel any of the positions.She may be suited for a management Trainer if we are a multinational company w/distributors (locations) in S. America. " (W S, OTH) 4.«NH: ”She did not impress me as being very energetic or outgoing. (MO, FR) 5.«NH: ”Her approach in her resume was not in a business like manner. (She dressed drabby.)" (0TH, AP) 6.«NH: ”Her employment background would make me wonder if she would be comitted(sic) to the job, or leave in one year.” (MO) CANDIDATE D: NH RESPONSES «Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 1 item (10% of 10 items) «Combining FR, IS, MO, PE, SC (”Personality/Interpersonal” factor) yields 5 items (50% of 10 items). «”Other" yields 3 items (30% of 10 items); Appearance yields 1 item (10%). CANDIDATE D: HRB RESPONSES 1.«HRB: ”Due to experience & finance background - ? over educated for salary level. " (WE. ED) 2.«HRB: "Analytical, organizational strengths, presentation of resume does not present evidence of creativity people-orientation. " (W S, IS) 3.«HRB: "Consistent background in financial manners (sic) - reflects personality of determined, etc. & seems able to work independently." (WS, PE, MO) 4.«I-IRB: "Doesn’t seem to have a quick & friendly personality.” (PE) 5.«HRB: 'I don’t think she would make a good sales rep. She might make a good manager (might) This leaves Human Resources. " (OTH) 6.«HRB: (no comments) 7.«HRB: ”She demonstrates the capability to work independent - with accuracy, & efficiency. " (W S) 8.«HRB: ”She has experience with people, numbers, and computers which would be a benefit in this position. She is non-aggressive and therefore, would be a poor sales rep. I can not see here(sic) being a manager trainee because she shows no leadership sills(sic)." (WS, PE) FIGURE 40 RATIONALE FOR JOB CHOICE: CANDIDATE D 281 9.«HRBz-SR: “Experience (WE) 10.«HRB: ”She appears to be best suited for these job expectations.” (OTH) ll.«I-IRB: ”Her personality does not appear warm or persuasive enough for sales. She doesn’t seem motivated quite enough for management trainee. Her work would be precise and accurate, thereby fitting for an analyst." (PE, MO, WS) 12.«HRB: ”With a combination of both her experience and personality, she seems suitable for this position. She would be able to do the job and she doesn’t seem to be the type of person to want to climb the ladder.” (WE, PE, WS, MO) l3.«HRB: (no comments) 14.«HRB: ”I don’t believe she would be aggressive enough in the other jobs.” (PE) 15 .«HRB: ”She would be able to work independently and produce more output than someone else & its tailor made for her She didn’t seem to want advancement just a job. " (WS, MO) l6.«HRB: "Work independently.” (WS) l7.«HRB: "At first impression Ms. Anderson does not appear to have the necessary skills for "fast track" leadership or sales representative. Her employment history indicates that she would be appropriate as Human Resources Benefits Analyst also she majored in Finance." (WS, WE, ED) 18.«HRB: "IF for anything - not agressive(sic) enough for sales management. " (PE) 19.«HRB: (No comments) 20.«HRB: "I don’t think she would be right in any of the other positions because she does not seem aggressive or motivated enough. This position could fit her because it is somewhat boring & tedious.” (PE, MO) 21.«HRB: 'I think that she would work well alone." (OTH) 22.«HRB: ”Lacks charisma needed to be in sales - Lacks confidence & assertiveness needed for mgt.” (PE, SC, PE) 23. «HRB: "She is intelligent and would likely be a good worker. - She is diversified in the general business areas.” (OTH, WS) 24.«HRB: ”It appears she would take the work seriously and would work diligently under supervision. You can’t have all all-stars on your team.” (WS, MO) 25.«HRB: (no comments) 26.«HRB: ”Can always see how she does & move to mgmt. trainee position months to a yr. later.” (OTH) 27.«HRB: "Analytical abilities." (WS) 28.«HRB: ”Leslie will probably work best alone." (OTH) 29.«HRB: ”Has some payroll experience finance background/analytical background. " (WE. WS) FIGURE 40 (Cont’d) 282 CANDIDATE'D: HRB RESPONSES «Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 20 items (45.5% of 44 items) «Combining FR, IS, MO, PE, SC ("Personality/Interpersonal“ factor) yields 18 items (40.9% of 44 items). «"Other' yields 6 items (13.6% of 44 items); Appearance yields 0 items. CANDIDATE D: JOB HIRE & WHY 1.«SR: ”Likes to travel, good with clients.“ (TR, IS) 2.«SR: ”Motivated.” (MO) 3.«SR: ”She has sales experience. Her grades are not excellent enough to convince me that she is a ”most qualified candidate" re: mgmt trainee. She likes to travel.” (WE, ED, TR) 4.«SR: ”Has a good variety in background - should be able to articulate well - work alone in this position." (WE, CS, OTH) 5.«SR: "Experience working with customers and very articulate.” (IS, CS) 6.«SR: "Previous sales representative experience - Marketing Degree - Managerial experience for future placement - Enjoys travel. " (WE, ED, TR) 7.«SR: I'She likes to travel and deal with customers.” (TR, IS) 8.«SR: ”Very professional in appearance, is used to traveling, some prior experience. " (AP. TR. WE) 9.«SR: ”The travel and other aspects of sales rep (customer contact etc) would fit her background. " (TR, WE) 10.«SR: "Outgoing and articulate, able to meet new people, willing to travel. " (FR, CS, TR) ll.«SR: ”Needs more experience before training for management. Background should prove beneficial. " (WE, OTH) 12.«SR: ”Because of experience and desire to travel.” (WE, TR) l3.«SR: ”She seems confident enuf(sic) in her abilities and able to work alone without direct supervision to accomplish goal-oriented tasks. " (CS, OTH, MO) 14.«SR: ”First is with the travel requirement. Will be motivated to move up in company and to establish permancy(sic). Diversied(sic) work history will allow success at this position." (TR, MO, WE) 15.«SR: ”Because of her communication and travel experience. " (CS, TR) l6.«SR: "Because it states that this person will be doing alot of traveling, who knows she might be in a foreign country trying to sell goods over there. By her being fluent in Spanish this might be a great access to her and the company goals." (TR, LS) l7.«SR: ”Travel background, self motivated, bilingual experience communication skills, interpersonal skill. Confident." (TR, MO, LS, IS, SC) FIGURE 40 (Cont’d) 283 18.—SR: ”She has experience in dealing with retailers and customers. She is willing to travel. She also has management & supervisory experience. " (WE) 19.«SR: ”Because of her education experience and her communication skills. " (ED, CS) 20.«SR: ”According to her resume she has the experience and interest desired to be a manager. I think her tone of voice needs to change and will need to establish some new speaking techniques to keep people interested.“ (WE, CS) 21.«SR: ”Customer contact experience.” (WE) 22.«SR: "I feel her qualifications & interest would be suited to this position.” (WE) 23.«SR: “Leslie has shown an interest in travel, she has significant experience & education in the finance end of business and seems best suited for a Sales Repres.‘ (TR, WE, ED) 24.«SR: "I would never hire anyone by a video and a resume. I would consider Leslie for the Sales Rep because of work experience & education. " (WE, ED) CANDIDATE D: SR RESPONSES «Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 41 items (74.5% of 55 items) «Combining FR, IS, MO, PE, SC ("Personality/Interpersonal” factor) yields 10 items (18.2% of 55 items). «"Other" yields 3 items (5.5% of 55 items); Appearance yields 1 item (1.8%). CANDIDATE D: JOB HIRE & WHY 1.«MT: ”With the education and experience she has had, I feel that she would be an asset in this position. She has the eagerness required to handle all situations, and her minor in Spanish could help with bilingual customers.” (ED, WE, MO, LS) 2.«MT: ”She has had the necessary training and experience to fill this position.” (WE) 3.«MT: "She sounds as though she is ready to work and will do a fine job for a company. I feel she is not sales potential and would not be happy behind a desk. So rotate her to find her nitch."’?" (sic) (MO, OTH) 4.«MT: ”Poorly defined skills, short work histories no idea of performance or successes. " (W S. WE) 5.«MT: ”She appears to have the right combonation(sic) of experience and education to do well in this position.” (WE, ED) 6.«MT: "She has the education and the motivation to take on this position. If customer contact is not her bag, she may be an asset in the finance or quality control areas. " (ED, MO) FIGURE 40 (Cont’d) 284 7.«MT: ”Good work & educational background. Would benifit(sic) from corporate exposure. Seems motivated and self confident.” (WE, ED, MO, SC) 8.«MT: "She seems qualified, given her experience and education. " (WE, ED) 9.«MT: "Seems best - applicant has sales & personnel experience. " (WE) 10.«MT: ”She has experience in supervision and training." (WE) ll.«MT: (no comments) 12.«MT: ”Experience in management, works independently, background in several areas already, learns fast.” (WE, OTH) l3.«MT: (no comments) 14.«MT: "Because she is more suitable for this position.“ (OTH). 15.«MT: "She does have the qualifications.” (WS) CANDIDATE D: MT RESPONSES «Combining CS, ED, LS, TR, WE, WS (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities factor) yields 17 items (68% of 25 items) «Combining FR, 18, MO, PE, SC (”Personality/Interpersonal" factor) yields 5 items (25% of 25 items). «"Other" yields 3 items (12% of 25 items); Appearance yields 0 items. FIGURE 40 (Cont’d) 285 BIBLIOGRAPHY 286 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ajzen, lock, and Martin Fishbein. WWWM Bahia/1121'. Copyright 1980 by Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Bagley, C. R. D. N. Conklin, R. T. lsherwood, D. R. Pechiulis, and L. A. Watson. ”Attitudes of Nurses Toward Obesity and Obese Patients." W, vol. 68, 1989, pg. 954. Baker, Jane 0. "The Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Protection for Victims of Weight Discrimination." W, vol. 29, 1982, pp. 947-971. Barocas, Ralph, and Paul Karoly. "Effects of Physical Appearance on Social Responsiveness." W, vol. 31, 1972, pp. 495- 500. Baum, Laurie. "Extra Pounds Can Weight Down Your Career. " M, August 3, 1987, p. 96. Beehr, Terry A. , and David C. Gilmore. "Applicant Attractiveness as a Perceived J ob-Relevant Variable in Selection of Management Trainees. " AcademgiMmgemem Journal, vol. 25, #3, 1982, pp. 607-617. Beller Anne Scott. EatandlhmHAflamLflmoLlerm Copyright 1977 by Anne Scott Beller. Published by Farrar, Strous, and Giroux, New York, New York. Bellizi, Joseph A., Michael A. Klassen, and Joseph J. Belonax. "Stereotypical Beliefs About Overweight and Smoking and Decision-Making In Assignments to Sales Territories." W5, vol. 69, 1989, pp. 419-429. Berger, Joseph, B. P. Cohen and Morris Zelditch, Ir. "Status Characteristics and Expectation States." 829W, vol. 1, pp. 2946; edited by J. Berger, M. Zelditch, Jr., and B. Anderson. Published 1966 by Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Mass. 287 Berger, Joseph, M. Hammit Fisek, Robert Z. Norman, and Morris Zelditch Jr. Status . . n . . . Copyright 1977 by Elsevier ScientificPub. Co., Inc ,New York. Berscheid, Ellen, and Elaine Walster. "Physical Attractiveness." ILAdxancoLin BMW, edited by Leonard Berkowitz, vol 7, 1974, Academic Press, New York, pp. 157- 215. Boor, M. , S. Wartrnan and D. Reuben. "Relationship of Physical Appearance and Professional Demeanor to Interview Evaluations and Rankings of Medical Residency Applicants." Won, 1983, vol. 113, pp. 61—65. Brink, T. I. "Obesity and Job Discrimination: Mediation Via Personality Stereotypes." Wis, 1988. vol. 66. p. 494. Bull. Ray, and Nichola Rumsey. WWW. Copyright 1988 by Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, New York. Cahnman, Werner J. "The Stigma of Obesity." WWW, vol. 9, #3, Summer 1968, pp. 283-299. Cann, Arnie, William D. Siegfiied, and Lorena Pearce. "Forced Attention to Specific Applicant Qualifications: Impact on Physical Attractiveness and Sex of Applicant Biases." WW, vol. 34, 1981, pp. 65-75. Canning, Helen, and Jean Mayer. "Obesity: Its Possible Effect on College Acceptance." From the W, vol. 275, #21, November 24, 1966, pp. 1172-1174. Carlson, Robert E. "Selection Interview Decisions: The Relative Influence of Appearance and Factual Written Information on an Interviewer’ s Final Rating." Journal Wm vol 51 #6 1967 pp 461-468 Cascio, Wayne F. W second edition- Copyright 1982 by Reston Publishing Company. Cash, Thomas F. ,Barry Gillen, and D. Steven Burns. "Sexism and ”Beautyism in Personnel Consultant Decision-Making." WW, 1977, vol. 62, #3, pp. 301 -3 10. Cherulnik, Paul D. ,1.aurie C. Turns and Scott K. Wilderman. "Physical Appearance and Leadership: Exploring the Role of Appearance-Based Attribution 1n Leader Emergence" WW 1990 V01 20 #13 PP- 1530-1539 288 Clayson, Dennis E., and Michael L. Klassen. "Perception of Attractiveness By Obesity and Hair Color." W115, 1989, vol. 68, pp. 192-202. Crandall, Christian. "Do Heavy-Weight Students Have More Difficulty Paying for College?" WW, Vol. 17, #6, December 1991 pp. 606—611. DeJong, William. "The Stigma of Obesity: The Consequences of Naive Assumptions Concerning the Causes of Physical Deviance." WW, 1980, vol. 21 (March), pp. 75- 87. DeJong, William, and Robert E. Kleck. "The Social Psychological Effects of Overweight." Cited m ,, . a. .. . ._ Symmsinm, Volume 3, edited by C. Peter Herman, Mark P. Zanna, and E. Tory Higgins. Copyright 1986 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey. Dickey-Bryant, LeAnne, Gary J. Lautenschlager, Jorge L. Mendoza, and Norman Abrahams. "Facial Attractiveness and Its Relation to Occupational Success." Journalof 13mm, 1986, vol. 71, #1, pp. 16-19. Dipboye. Robert L. Wm COPyright 1992 by Southwestern Publishing Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. Dipboye, Robert L., H. Fromkin and K. Wiback. "Relative Importance of Applicant Sex, Attractiveness, and Scholastic Standing in Evaluation of Job Applicant Resumes" Wales): 1975 vol 60 PP 3943 Dipboye, Robert L, Richard D. Arvey, and David E. Terpstra. "Sex and Physical Attractiveness of Raters and Applicants as Determinants of Resume Evaluations." Joumal Wow, 1977, vol. 62, #3, pp. 288 294 Everett, Martin. "Let an Overweight Person Call on Your Best Customers? Fat Chance" WM. 1990. vol 142 #4 PP 66-70 Fitzgerald, Faith. "The Problem of Obesity." WW, vol. 32, 1981, pp. 221-231. Forsythe, Sandra, Mary Frances Drake and Charles E. Cox. "Influence of Applicant’s Dress on Interviewer’ s Selection Decisions." Wow, 1985, vol. 70, #2, pp. 374-378. Franzoi, Stephen L. an,d Mary E. Herzog. "Judging Physical Attractiveness: What Body Aspects Do We Use?" WWW, vol. 13, #1,1987, pp. 19- 33. 289 Freeman, Richard J. ,Cheryl D. Thomas, Leslie Solyum, and Michael A. Hunter. "A Modified Video Camera For Measuring Body Image Distortion. Technical Description and Reliability." BMW, vol. 14, 1984, pp. 411-416. Gallup, George, and Frank Newport. "The Battle of the Bulge: Americans Continue to Fight It." WW, December 1990, pp. 23-34. Garner, David M. , Paul E. Garfield, Donald Schwartz, and Michael Thompson. "Cultural Expectations of Thinness in Women." W, 1980, vol. 47, pp. 483-491. Garner, David M., and Susan C. Wooley. "Confronting the Failure of Behavioral and Dietary Treatments for Obesity." Wow, 1991, vol. 11, pp. 1-52. Gillen, Barry. "Physical Attractiveness: A Determinant of Two Types of Goodness. WW vol 7 #2 1981 PP 277 231 Gilmore, David C. ,Terry A. Beehr, and Kevin G. Love. "Effects of Applicant Sex, Applicant Physical Attractiveness, Type of Rater and Type of Job on Interview Decision8"1911mal_Q£_QcQ1natiQnaL£s¥cthm VG. 59 1936 PD 103109 Greenwald, M. "The Effects of Physical Attractiveness, Experience, and Social Performance on Employment Decision-Making in Job Interviews. Emotional MW, 1981, vol. 1, pp. 275- 287. Harris, Mary B. ,and Sara Dawn Smith. "The Relationships of Age, Sex, Ethnicity, and Weight to Stereotypes of Obesity and Self-Perception." WW, 1983, Vol. 7, pp. 361-371. Hatfield E and S Sprecher WWW 1W. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, 1986. Heilman, Madeline E. ,Caryn J. Block, Richard F. Martell, and Michael C. Simon. "Has Anything Changed? Current Characterizations of Men, Women, and Managers." WW): 1939 V01- 74 #6 PP- 935 942- Heilman, Madeline E, and Lois R. Saruwatari. "When Beauty is Beastly: The Effects of Appearance and Sex on Evaluations of Job Applicants for Managerial and Nonmgerial JobS" QrganizationachhmoLaniHumanIZcrformance, vol 23,1979, pages 360-372. 290 Heilman, Madeline E., and Melanie H. Stopeck. "Being Attractive. Advantage or Disadvantage? Performance-Based Evaluations and Recommended Personnel Actions as a Function of Appearance, Sex, and Job Type" W W, vol. 35, 1985, pp. 202- 215. Heilman, Madeline E. ,and Melanie H. Stopeck. "Attractiveness and Corporate Success: Different Causal Attributions for Males and Females." W Esyoholow, vol. 70, #2, 1985, pp. 379- 388. Homant, Robert J., and Daniel B. Kennedy. "Attitudes Toward Ex-Offenders: A Comparison of Social Stigmas." WWW, vol. 10, 1982, pp. 383-192. Jackson, L, "The Influence of Sex, Physical Attractiveness, Sex Role, and Occupational Sex-Linkage on Perceptions of Occupational Suitability" WWW Psyoholow, vol. 13, 1983a, pp. 31-44. Jackson, L. "Gender, Physical Attractiveness, and Sex Role 1n Occupational Treatment Discrimination" WWW 1933b vol 13 PP 3144 Jasper, Cynthia R., and Michael L. Klassen. "Perceptions of Salespersons’ Appearance and Evaluation of Job Performance." W5, vol. 71, 1990, pp. 563-566. Karris, Lambros. "Prejudice AgainstObeseRenters." IholoumaloflSog’nlBsycholow, vol. 101, 1977, ppp. 159-160. Kay. Herma Hill. WWW. Third Edition, published by West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN, 1988. Kiechel, Walter, 111. "Beauty and the Managerial Beast." Eomino, Nov. 10, 1986, pp. 201—203. Klassen, Michael Lynn. "The Cognitive Basis of Social Judgment: The Role of Stereotypical Beliefs in the Processing of Information about Obese and Thin People." Doctoral Dissertation, 1987, printed by University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Klassen, Michael L., Suzanne M. Wauer, and Sheila Cassel. "Increases in Health and Weight Loss Claims 1n Food Advertising in the Eighties" Wing Rm, December 1990/January 1991, pp. 32- 37. Lampert, Leslie. "Fat Like Me." Ladiesjflomolonmal, vol. 110, #5, pp. 154+, May 1993. 291 Larkin, J. C, and H. A. Pines. "No Fat Persons Need Apply. Experimental Studies of the Overweight Stereotype and Hiring Preference." Smolowofflozkfldfloeuoanons, vol. 6, 1979, pp. 312- 327. Lissner, Lauren, Patricia M. Odell, Ralph B. D’Agostino, Joseph Stokes III, Bernard E. Kreger, Albert J. Belanger, and Kelly D. Brownell. "Variability of Body Weight and Health Outcomes in the Framingham Population. " WW Medicine, vol. 324, #26, June 27, 1991, pp. 1839 - 1844. Maddox, George L. ,and Veronica Liederman. "Overweight as a Social Disability with Medical Implications" W, vol. 44, March 1969, pp. 214 220. Maruyama, Geoffrey, and Norman Miller. "Physical Attractiveness, Race, and Essay Evaluation" WW. vol 6 #3 1980.91) 334-390 Mason, Karol V. "Employment Discrimination Against the Overweight." JonmaLof Wm, vol. 15, #2, Winter 1982, pp. 337—362. Mason, Robert D., Douglas A. Lind, and William G. Marchal. W W911. Copyright 1991 by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, publishers, San Diego, CA. Miller, Carol T. Esther D. Rothblum, Linda Barbour, Pamela A. Brand, and Diane Felicio. "Social Interactions of Obese and N onobese Women." Jonmaloffiezsonahfl, vol. 58, #2, 1990, pp. 365- 380. Miller, Delbert C. "Hollingshead’ s Two Factor Index of Social Position." In the ‘ . ‘ ‘ ,pp. 230—238. Copyright 1977 by David McKay Company, Inc, New York, NY. 5 Morrow, Paula C. "Physical Attractiveness and Selection Decision Making." Lonmal Management, vol. 16, #1, 1990, pp. 45-60. Morrow, Paula C., James C. McElroy, Bernard G. Stamper, and Mark A. Wilson. "The Effects of Physical Attractiveness and Other Demographic Characteristics on Promotion Decisions." Management, vol. 16, #4, 1990, pp. 723-736. Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum. IheMeasmementof Meaning. Copyright 1957 by the University of Ilinois. Powers, Mary G. "Measures of Socioeconomic Status: An Introduction." Pages 1 2-8 in MW, edited by Mary G. Powers. Copyright 1981 by Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 292 Powers, Mary G., and Joan J. Holmberg. "Occupational Status Scores: Changes Introduced by the Inclusion of Women." Pages 55- 81 in W W, edited by Mary G. Powers. Copyright 1981 by Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Raza, S. M. ,and Carpenter, B. N. "A Model of Hiring Decisions in Real Employment Interviews" WWW—135191191981, vol. 72, 1987, pp. 596-603. Riegelhaupt, Barry Jay. "Discrimination in Personnel Decisions: the Effects of Applicant Sex and Physical Attractiveness. " Doctoral Dissertation, 1984, published by University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Riggio, Ronald E., and Barbara Throckmorton. "The Relative Effects of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior, Appearance, and Social Skills on Evaluations Made in Hiring Interviews." WWW, vol. 18, #4, 1988, pp. 331 -348. Rodin, Judith, Lisa Silberstein, and Ruth Striegel- -Moore. "Women and Weight: A Normative Discontent." Published m W, 1984. Ross, J. an,d K. Ferris. "Interpersonal Attraction and Organizational Outcomes: A Field Examination." Administrafiyejeieneeflnnefly, 1981, Vol. 6, pp. 617-632. Roszell, Patricia, David Kennedy, and Edward Grabb. "Physical Attractiveness and Income Attainment Among Canadians." Ihelonmniflsycholow, vol. 123, #6 (1989??), pp. 547-559. Rothblum, Esther D., Carol T. Miller, and Barbara Garbutt. "Stereotypes of Obese Female 106 Applicantsf' WW, vol 7 #2 1988 pp 277- 283. Rothblum, Esther D, Pamela A. Brand, Carol T. Miller, and Helen A. Oetjen. "The Relationship Between Obesity, Employment, Discrimination, and Employment-Related Victimization." WW, 1990, vol. 37, pp. 251 -.260 Seguine, Thomas E. "What’s a Handicap Anyway? Analyzing Handicap Claims Under the Rehabilitation Act of 197 3 and Analogous State Statutes." WWW, Vol. 22, 1986, pp. 529- 557. Snyder, Mark, Ellen Berscheid, and Alana Matwychuk. "Orientation Toward Personnel Selection: Differential Reliance Upon Appearance and Personality" .[om'nnlof W192! vol 54 #6 1933 PP 972 979 Sobal, Jeffery, and Albert J . Stunkard. "Socioeconomic Status and Obesity: A Review of the Literature." Ewehologiealfinflet'm, 1989, vol. 105, #2, pp. 260-275. 293 Sparacino, J. "Physical Attractiveness and Occupational Prestige Among Male College Graduates." Bwehflogmfljepom, 1980, vol. 47, pp. 1275- 1280. Tabachnick, Barbara G., and Linda S. Fidell. 11W. Copyright 1989 by Harper-Collins Publishers, Inc., New York, NY. Then, Deborah Ann. "Benefits of Beauty: The Impact of Physical Attractiveness, Sex and Education in Social and Work Evaluations." Doctoral Dissertation, 1986, published by University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Tiggemann, Marika, and Esther D. Rothblum. "Gender Differences in Social Consequences of Perceived Overweight in the United States and Australia." W, vol. 18, nos. 1/2, 1988, pp. 75-86. Triandis, Harry C. W. Copyright 1971 by John Wiley and Sons, New York. Umberson, Debra, and Michael Hughes. "The Impact of Physical Attractiveness on Achievement and Psychological Well- -Being." SoeinLEwehoiomenefly, Vol. 50, no. 3, 1987, pp. 227- 236. Vener, Arthur M., Lawrence R. Krupka, and Roy J. Gerard. "Overweight/Obese Patients: An Overview." Monomer, Vol. 226, June 1982, pp. 1102-1109. Waters, J. "Cosmetics and the Job Market" In J. Graham and A. Kligman (eds.), The W; 1985; New York Praeger Wolf, Naomi. - . . ‘ - n. . Copyright 1992 by Naomi Wolf; published by William Morrow and Co., New York, New York. Wooley, Susan C. ,and David M. Garner. "Obesity Treatment: The High Cost of False H096" Wanting 1991 vol 91 #10 pp.12481251. Wooley, Orland W, Susan C. Wooley and Sue R. Dyrenforth. "Obesity and Women: 11- A Neglected Feminist TOPiC" WW1): 1979 V01 2, pp. 81-92. Wooley, Susan C. and Orland W. Wooley. "Obesity and Women: 1. A Closer Look at the Facts" WW, 1979, vol. 2, pp. 69-79. Worsley, A. "Teenagers’ Perceptions of Fat and Slim People." IntemationaLlomml Wily, vol. 5, 1981, pp. 15—24. 294 Court Cases: Carole A. Gerdom, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. Continental Airlines, Inc. , Defendant- Appellee. No. 79-3215, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, cited in 692 Federal Reporter, 2d Series, 1982, pp. 602-615. Sandra Jarrell et. al, Plaintiffs, vs. Eastern Airlines, Inc., Defendants, Civ. A. No. 74-0353-R, U.S. District Court, E.D. Virginia, March 3, 1977, cited in 430 Federal Supplement (1977), pp. 884-893. Mary P. Laffey et al. vs. Northwest Airlines, Inc. , Appellant, Airline Pilots Association, Non-Aligned party. Nos. 74-1791 and 75-1334, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, cited in 567 Federal Reporter, 2d Series, pp. 429-478. Susan Gail Leonard et al, Plaintiffs, vs. National Airlines, Inc. , and Airline Pilots Association International, Defendants, MDL No. 218 and No. 75-719-Civ-NCR. U.S. District Court, S.D. Florida, April 26, 1977, cited in 424 Federal Supplement, 1977, pp. 269-276. Sharon Russell v. Salve Regina College, 649 F .Supp. 391 , 406 (D.R.I. 1986) and Russell v. Salve Regina College, 890 F .2d 484 (lst Cir. 1989). "1111111111111111111“