The Effects of Physical Attractiveness On Job-Related Outcomes: Meta-Analysis OF Experimental Studies
The Effects of Physical Attractiveness On Job-Related Outcomes: Meta-Analysis OF Experimental Studies
The Effects of Physical Attractiveness On Job-Related Outcomes: Meta-Analysis OF Experimental Studies
2003,56,431-462
MEGUMI HOSODA
Department of Psychology
San Jose State University
EUGENE F. STONE-ROMERO
Department of Psychology
University of Central Florida
GWEN COATS
Department of Psychology
University at Albany, State University of New York
Over the past few decades, numerous individual studies and several
meta-analytic reviews have shown that physical attractiveness is impor-
tant in the U.S. More specifically, the same studies have demonstrated
that there is a positive correlation between physical attractiveness (re-
ferred to hereinafter as attractiveness) and a host of outcomes. For ex-
ample, attractiveness has been shown to influence, among other vari-
ables, initial impressions (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991;
Feingold, 1992; Jackson, Hunter, & Hodge, 1995), date and mate se-
lection decisions (e.g., Adams, 1977), helping behavior (e.g., Benson,
Karabenick, & Lerner, 1976), teacher judgments of student intelligence
We thank the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions
on an earlier version of this article.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Meymi Hosoda,
Department of Psychology, San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San Jose,
CA 95192-0120; [email protected].
COPYRIGHT 0 2003 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC.
43 1
432 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
and future academic potential (e.g., Ritts, Patterson, & Tubbs, 1992),
voters’ preferences for political candidates (e.g., Adams, 1977), and ju-
rors’ judgments in simulated trials (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994). More-
over, the results of a recent meta-analysis (Langlois, Kalakanis, Ruben-
stein, Larson, Hallam, & Smoot, 2000) have shown that the effects of
physical attractiveness are robust and pandemic, extending beyond ini-
tial impressions of strangers to actual interactions with people. Lan-
glois et al. (2000) further concluded that the benefits of attractiveness
are large enough to be “visible to the naked eye,” and that they are of
considerable practical significance.
The benefits of attractiveness have also been shown in the occu-
pational domain. Evidence of an attractiveness bias in work settings
has been reported in a number of non-meta-analytic, narrative reviews
(e.g., Bull & Rumsey, 1988; Jackson, 1992; Morrow, 1990; Stone, Stone,
& Dipboye, 1992). Overall, what these reviews suggest is that rela-
tive to less attractive individuals, attractive people tend to fare better
in terms of such criteria as perceived job qualifications (e.g., Dipboye,
Fromkin, & Wiback, 1975; Quereshi & Kay, 1986), hiring recommenda-
tions (e.g., Cann, Siegfried, & Pearce, 1981; Gilmore, Beehr, & Love,
1986), predicted job success (Morrow, McElroy, Stamper, & Wilson,
1990), and compensation levels (e.g., Frieze, Olson, & Russell, 1991;
Roszell, Kennedy, & Grabb, 1989). In addition, sex differences have
been observed in the effects of attractiveness on job-related outcomes.
However, the direction of such differences has been equivocal (e.g.,
Jackson, 1992). Furthermore, a variety of factors (e.g., occupational sex-
linkage,job type) have been shown to moderate the relationship between
attractiveness and job-related outcomes (e.g., Jackson, 1992).
Given a bias against physically unattractive individuals on a variety
of job-related outcomes, Stone et al. (1992) argued that attractiveness
is an important factor that deserves more attention than it has received
thus far in organizational research. In addition, several researchers (e.g.,
Morrow et al., 1990, Stone et al., 1992) asserted that although attractive-
ness may not be the most important determinant of personnel decisions,
it may be the decidingfuctor when decision makers are faced with dif-
ficult choices among job applicants or incumbents who possess similar
levels of qualifications or performance.
In view of these considerations and Langlois et al.3 (2000) conclu-
sion that attractiveness effects have practical significance, we conducted
a meta-analysis concerned with the attractiveness bias in simulated em-
ployment contexts. We used implicit personality theory (e.g., Ashmore,
1981) and a lack of fit model (Heilman, 1983) to explain how attractive-
ness influencesjob-related outcomes. These theories were used because
they offer predictions not only about the relationship between attractive-
MEGUMI HOSODA ET AL. 433
ness and job-related outcome variables, but also about potential moder-
ators of the same relationship, However, we agree with Langlois et al.3
(2000) assertion that no single theory is likely to offer a complete expla-
nation of attractiveness effects; instead, extant theories should be viewed
as complementary, rather than competitive in explaining such effects.
The following section provides a summary of social cognition per-
spectiveson the effects of stereotypes on person perception. In addition,
it offers brief explanations of implicit personality theory and the lack of
fit model as well as predictions stemming from these two theoretical per-
spectives.
TheoreticalPerspectives on the Relationship Between Physical
Attractiveness and Job-Related Outcomes
Research on social cognition (e.g., Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske &
Taylor, 1991; Hamilton, Stroessner, & Driscoll, 1994) shows that individ-
uals initially categorize a target person on the basis of available physical
cues (e.g., race, sex, attractiveness, age). Once categorized, expecta-
tions associated with the category are activated, and the target person is
judged on the basis of these category-based expectations. Both implicit
personality theory (e.g., Ashmore, 1981) and the lack of fit model (Heil-
man, 1983) assume that attractiveness evokes stereotype-based expecta-
tions and that individuals are evaluated on the basis of such expectations.
between the two). Thus, the lack of fit model predicts that for stereotyp-
ically masculine jobs, attractiveness should be an asset for men but not
for women. Conversely, for stereotypicallyfeminine jobs, attractiveness
should be an asset for women but not for men. Thus, the same model
predicts that attractiveness will interact with sex and the sex-type of job
to influence job-related outcomes.
Heilman and her colleagues (Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979; Heilman
& Stopeck, 1985a) have shown that although attractiveness is a liability
for women who apply or hold stereotypically masculine jobs, men are
not affected by a lack of fit because attractive men are seen as having the
potential to be successful in either masculine or feminine jobs. However,
it should be noted that Heilman’s studies are the on& ones that have
reported the adverse effects of attractiveness for women (Jackson, 1992).
Despite empirical evidence that attractiveness enhances the percep-
tion of sex-typing (e.g., Gillen, 1981; Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979), sex-
typed traits (e.g., masculinity, femininity) were not included in meta-
analytic reviews by Eagly et al. (1991), Feingold (1992), or Langlois et al.
(2000). Thus, Jackson (1992) contended that it may be unjustified and
misleading to conclude that men and women of similar attractiveness are
similarly perceived and judged, and suggested that attractiveness might
have different effects for men and women when sex-typed traits are rel-
evant to judgments. In view of the foregoing, our meta-analysis tested
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Attractiveness will interact with sex and sex-typing of job
in affecting job-related outcomes. In particular, attractiveness will be a
liability for women who apply for or hold a stereotypically masculine job.
Additional Predictions
Research Questions
the effect might have decreased over the years because decision mak-
ers might have become aware of the attractiveness bias and manifested
a lesser willingness to allow it to serve as a basis for decision making.
Therefore, we explored this issue in our meta-analysis. We did so by as-
sessing the extent to which the relationship between attractiveness and
various outcomes differs over several 5-year periods (see below). Note
that we used 5-year intervals, as opposed to 1-year intervals, because of
the fact that the greater the number of observations considered by esti-
mates of central tendency (i.e., of effect size), the greater the stability of
such estimates. The study question that we addressed was:
Research Question 3: Does the magnitude of the attractiveness effect differ
across 5-year time intervals?
Method
Sample of Studies
Two basic procedures were used to obtain the data upon our meta-
analysis was based. First, computer-based searches were conducted us-
ing the keywordphysical attractiveness, combined with such keywords as
selection, evaluation,promotion, management,professional, job applicant,
and performance evaluation in the followingcomputerized data bases for
the periods noted: PsychINFO (PsychologicalAbstracts; 1967 to 2000),
SociologicalAbstracts (1963 to 2000), and ERIC (Educational Resources
Information Center; 1966 to 2000). Second, we searched the reference
lists of all the primary studies, review articles (e.g., Eagly et al., 1991;
Morrow, 1990; Stone et al., 1992), and books (e.g., Bull & Rumsey, 1988;
Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986; Jackson, 1992; Langlois, 1986) concerned
with attractiveness issues. The initial search produced 76 studies for po-
tential inclusion in the meta-analysis.
In order for studies to be included in our meta-analysis, we used two
decision rules: (a) the attractiveness of the target had to be a manipu-
lated variable, and (b) one or more of the study’s dependent variables
had to be a rating of the target on outcomes concerned with either ac-
cess to jobs (e.g., hiring decisions, qualification ratings) or job-related
treatment (e.g., promotions, performance evaluation). We used these
criteria because we were interested in assessing the causal relationship
between physical attractiveness and a variety of job-related outcomes.
In view of the same criteria, a number of primary studies were excluded
from the meta-analysis because they did not manipulate the physical at-
tractiveness of targets (e.g., Dickey-Bryan, Lautenschlager, Mendoza,
& Abrahams, 1986; Raza & Carpenter, 1987; Riggio & Throckmorton,
1988; Roszell et al., 1989; Udry & Eckland, 1984). Furthermore, stud-
ies that focused on other aspects of job-related evaluations (e.g., causal
attributions; Heilman & Stopeck, 1985b) were eliminated. As a result
of using the just-noted selection criteria, the initial pool of 76 primary
studies was reduced to 27.
periment (i.e., laboratory, field, both), (g) type of research design (i.e.,
within-subjects, between-subjects), (h) type of job-related outcome (i.e.,
suitability ranking, hiring decision, promotion decision, predicted suc-
cess, suitability rating, employment potential, choice as a business part-
ner, performance evaluation), (i) publication year and publication pe-
riod (i.e., 1975-1979, 1980-1984, 1985-1989, 1990-1994, 1995-1999),
and (j)evidence on the effectiveness of the attractiveness manipulation
(i.e., pretest of manipulation and manipulation check, pretest of manip-
ulation and no manipulation check, no clear information on pretest).
These variableswere coded separately by the first and third authors. The
coding procedure revealed that there was nearly complete (about 98%)
agreement on virtually all coding. The few instances of disagreement
were resolved by discussion.
Two other issues related to the coding of studies deserve considera-
tion. The first has to do with the way we coded the combination of the
sex of target and sex-type of a job. In many studies, information about
the sex-type of a job was obvious from the manipulations that were used.
When the information about the sex-type of a job was not available, the
first and third authors coded it separately. There was complete agree-
ment on the sex-types of jobs.
The second issue concerns the coding of the relevance of job informa-
tion that was provided to study participants. We coded a study as provid-
ing low job-relevant information when participants were given informa-
tion that was not relevant or useful in making job-related decisions (e.g.,
an applicant’s hobbies). We coded a study as providinghigh job-relevant
information when participants were provided with information that was
relevant in making job-related decisions (e.g., relevant past work expe-
rience, interview transcripts, performance reviews, relevant college ma-
jor). Note that the judgment about the relevance of information was
determined by the quality of information provided to participants, not
by the amount of information provided.
outcomes than less attractive targets and negative when less attractive
targets were rated more positively than attractive targets on the same
outcomes.
Although an effort was made to extract as much information as possi-
ble from each primary study, not all the studies reported the information
needed for specific meta-analytic comparisons: For example, some stud-
ies had targets of only one sex. In addition, other studies reported only
the main effects of attractiveness, as opposed to interactive effects of at-
tractiveness, sex, or sex-type of job. Therefore, based on the 27 studies,
we were able to compute 62 g estimates. These estimates were based
upon (a) means and standard deviations for 41 effects, (b) F statistics
for 14 effects, (c) proportions for two effects, (d) t statistics for two ef-
fects, (e) significance levels @values) for two effects, and ( f ) a chi square
statistic for one effect.
AnaZysis of effect size estimates. Because the g index tends to overes-
timate the magnitude of population effect size, especially when samples
are small, the g s derived from the primary study data were converted
to ds (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). These ds were then combined to esti-
mate both (a) unweighted mean effect size estimates and (b) sample size
weighted mean effect size estimates. In addition, a homogeneity statistic,
Q (Hedges & Olkin, 1985), was calculated to determine if each set of ds
shared a common population effect size, that is, the effect size estimates
were homogeneous or consistent across the studies. Q has a distribution
that is approximately chi-square with k-1 degrees of freedom, where k is
the number of effect size estimates (Hedges & Olkin, 1985).
In cases where the Q statistic suggested a lack of effect size homo-
geneity, we sought study characteristic correlates (moderators) of the ef-
fect size indices (ds). More specifically,a categorical model was used to
determine the relation between the study attributes (as categories) and
the magnitude of effect size estimates (Hedges & Olkin,1985). Cate-
gorical models provide (a) a between-category effect size estimate that
is analogous to a main effect in analysis of variance, and (b) a test of
the homo eneity of the effect size estimates within each category (see
%
Hedges & lkin, 1985, for computational details).
The between-category effect is estimated by QB, which has an ap-
proximate chi-square distribution with p-1 degrees of freedom, where p
is the number of classes. The homogeneity of the effect size estimates
within each category (2) is estimated by Q w ~which
, has an approximate
chi-square distribution with m-1 degrees of freedom, where m is the
number of effect size estimates in the category. Tests of categorical mod-
els also provide estimates of the mean weighted effect size and 95% con-
fidence intervals for each category. The latter estimates can be used to
determine if within-category effect size estimates differ from zero.
MEGUMI HOSODA ET AL. 443
Results
Tests of Hypotheses
P
P
VI
P
P
o\
TABLE 1 (continued)
TABLE 2
Overall Effect of Attractiveness
As shown in Table 2, the Q statistic for the set of 62 effect size es-
timates (i.e., 176.02, p < .OOl) shows that they are not homogeneous.
Thus, consistent with the procedures outlined by Hedges and Olkin
(1985), we identified eight (13%) effect size outliers: These outlier es-
timates of effects came from the studies of Cash and Kilcullen (1985),
Heilman and Saruwatari (1979), Heilman and Stopeck (1985), Quereshi
and Kay (1986; two effects), Kushnir (1982), Dipboye, h e y , and Terp-
stra (1977), and Marshall, Stamps, and Moore (1998). An examination
of these estimates indicated that they were outliers because they were
considerably higher than the rest of the estimates.
A meta-analysis based upon the exclusion of the eight outliers re-
vealed a mean sample-size weighted effect size estimate of .34, and a
95% confidence interval extending from -29 to .39 (see Table 2). How-
ever, in view of the facts that (a) the mean weighted effect sizes for the
analysis involving 62 effect sizes (mean d = .37) and the analysis exclud-
ing the outliers (mean d = .34) did not differ greatly from one another,
and (b) the confidence intervals for the same two sets of effect sizes over-
lapped greatly, we concluded that the weighted mean effect size for at-
tractiveness falls within an interval that extends from .34 to .37.
As can be seen in Table 3, the strength of the attractiveness bias did
not differ as a function of the combination of sex of target and sex-type
of job, Q = 3.56, p > .05. Our results show that physical attractiveness is
always an asset for both male and female targets, regardless of the sex-
type of the job for which they applied or held. The effect size estimates
for attractiveness were all positive for both male and female targets, and
were in between the values of .30 and .45. Thus, the present study’s
results failed to provide support for Hypothesis 2.
Job-relevant infomation. The strength of the attractiveness effect
did not vary as a function of the presence of job-relevant information,
Q = 3.49, p = .06. Failing to provide support for Hypothesis 3, the
mean weighted effect size estimates showed the attractiveness bias did
P
P
TABLE 3 03
Attributes and class Mean weighted effect 95% C1 ford, Homogeneity within
Betweenclasses effects (QB) m n size estimate ( d i ) Lower Upper each class (Qwi)
~
not differ between the low job-relevant information (d = .44) and the
high job-relevant information (d = .34) conditions. Note, however, that
even though the difference in effect sizes is not statistically significant,
the pattern of means is consistent with Hypothesis 3.
Type ofresearch design. Table 3 shows the results of the analyses con-
cerned with the moderating effects of type of research design. Consis-
tent with Hypothesis 4, the attractiveness effect varied as a function of
research design: The mean effect size estimate was larger for within-
subjects designs (d = .40) than for between-subjects designs ( d = .26), Q
= 5.82, p < .05. Note, moreover, that there is almost no overlap what-
soever between the 95% confidence intervals for these two mean effect
size estimates. The intervals for within- and between-subjects designs
are .34 to .45 and .17 to .36, respectively.
Type of study participant. A test for the moderating effect of type
of study participant (i.e., student vs. professional) on mean effect size
estimates showed that this variable had no such effect. As can be seen in
Table 3, mean weighted effect size estimates did not differ meaningfully
betweenstudents (d = .40) and professionals (d = .31), Q = 3 . 8 8 , ~> .05.
These results provide a clear answer to Research Question 1.
Note, moreover, that, because all of the experiments that involved
college students were conducted in laboratory settings, and all of the ex-
periments that involved professionals were conducted in field settings,
the just-noted results also can be interpreted in terms of research set-
tings: More specifically, the magnitude of the attractiveness bias was
similar for experiments in laboratory and field settings.
Sex oftarget. The mean effect size estimate for studies dealing with
male targets (d = .40) did not differ from the mean effect size estimate
for studies dealing with female targets (d = .32), Q = 2.80, p > .05.
These results afford an unequivocal answer to Research Question 2:
Effect sizes do not differ between male and female targets.
Publicafionperiod. The strength of the attractiveness bias differed as
a function of the time interval in which studies were published, Q = 23.31,
p < .001. As shown in Table 3, mean weighted effect size estimates
across the five 5-year intervals were as follows; 1975-1979 ( d = 0.54),
1980-1984 (d = 0.48), 1985-1989 (d = 0.38), 1990-1994 (d = 0.37), and
1995-1999 (d = .19). The pattern of mean effect sizes suggests that they
are decreasing over time. Indeed, the mean weighted effect size esti-
mate for 1995-1999 (d = .19) was smaller than the mean weighted ef-
fect size estimates for 1975-1979 (d = 0.54) and for 1980-1984 (d = .48),
p < .01. Overall, therefore, we believe the results offer a clear answer to
Research Question 3: Effect sizes are decreasing as a function of time.
Type of job-related outcome. The strength of the attractiveness ef-
fect varied as a function of type of job-related outcome, Q = 24.05,
MEGUMI HOSODA ET AL. 45 1
p < .01. The mean weighted size estimate was largest when the crite-
rion was choice of business partner (d = 0.67), and was smallest when the
criterion was a performance evaluation (d = 0.16). The remaining job-
related outcomes resulted in effect size estimates that varied between
the values of 0.19 and 0.44. We urge that these results be interpreted
with caution because of a relatively small number of effect sizes associ-
ated with some of the job-related outcomes (e.g., employment potential,
choice as a business partner). Nevertheless, the results provide a clear
answer to Research Question 5: The magnitude of the attractiveness ef-
fect varies across the outcomes considered by research.
Effectiveness of attractiveness manipulation. As seen in Table 3, there
was no attractiveness effect for studies that did versus did not check for
the effectivenessof their attractiveness manipulations, Q = 4 . 5 4 , ~> .05.
Discussion
Type of Evaluator
Type of Outcome
Overall, the present findings have both theoretical and practical im-
plications. In terms of theory, they indicate that the attractiveness bias
is due to positive expectations associatedwith attractiveness, rather than
due to intensified perceptions of sex-typing. Although the present study
was not intended to compare and contrast theoretical perspectives, the
results of it are highly consistent with the tenets of implicit personality
MEGUMI HOSODA ET AL. 455
Limitations
other words, even they are motivated to do so, cognitively busy individu-
als will be less capable of correcting their stereotyped-based impressions
of a target than individualswho are not as busy. It deserves adding that in
actual organizations, decision makers are often faced with multiple tasks
when they evaluate individuals. The resulting cognitive busyness might
prevent them from using individuatinginformation, even when they may
be motivated to do so. Thus, their decisions may still be influenced by
attractiveness stereotypes.
Attractivenessof targets. A second potential limitation of our findings
has to do with the types of targets used in the primary studies included in
our meta-analysis. As mentioned earlier, the typical attractiveness study
compares high- and low-attractive targets. Because of this, the majority
of the effect size estimates used in our meta-analysis were for compar-
isons of what the authors of primary studies labeled as high-attractive
and low-attractive targets. Indeed, only 4 of the 27 studies in our sample
included a medium level of attractiveness condition. As a result, we were
unable to compute meaningful effect size estimates for comparisons of
(a) medium-attractive targets with (b) either high- or low-attractive tar-
gets. However, there is no good reason to expect other than a linear rela-
tionship between attractiveness and various job-related outcomes. Thus,
the absence of studies having targets of medium attractiveness does not
appear to be a threat to the external validity of our findings.
Types ofparticipants in primaty studies. Yet another potential limita-
tion to the external validity of our results is that we were unable to deter-
mine (and code) the sex of research participants in the primary studies
that were included in our meta-analysis. The reason for this is that au-
thors of most primary studies failed to report results separately for male
and female participants. However, both Eagly et al. (1991) and Feingold
(1992) reported that the strength of the attractiveness stereotype did not
vary as a function of the sex of subjects (i.e., raters). Thus,at present, we
do not know if male decision makers would evaluate attractive individu-
als more positively than would female decision makers or vice versa. As
a result, future research should investigate potential rater gender differ-
ences on the use of attractiveness cues in making job-related decisions.
Number of studies. Some might argue that the number of studies
( N = 27) upon which our meta-analysiswas based is rather small. How-
ever, it should be noted that many meta-analyses have been done using
a relatively small number of studies. For example, Olian et al.’s (1988)
meta-analysis dealing with gender discrimination in hiring decisions was
based upon only 20 studies. Likewise, a meta-analysis by ?bsi and Ein-
bender (1985) was based upon only 21 studies. Thus, we do not feel that
the number of studies considered by our meta-analysiswas too small to
produce meaningful results.
MEGUMI HOSODA ET AL. 457
Summaly
targets, (c) the attractiveness bias was larger for studies using within-
subjects designs than for those using between-subjects designs, (d) pro-
fessionals were as susceptible to the attractiveness bias as were college
students, (e) attractiveness was as important for male as for female tar-
gets, and ( f ) the biasing effect of attractiveness seems to have decreased
over time.
Finally, it deserves stressing that the present meta-analysis is not re-
dundant with prior meta-analyses on physical attractiveness. For exam-
ple, meta-analyses by Eagly et al. (1991) and Feingold (1992) were more
concerned with attractiveness stereotypes (e.g., intellectual competence,
concern for others, social competence) than with the effects of attrac-
tiveness on job-related outcomes. Langlois et al. (2000) went one step
beyond what might be viewed as “stranger-attribution paradigms” (i.e.,
physical attractiveness stereotypes) to determine the extent to which at-
tractiveness influenced daily lives and actual interactions. They found
that attractive adults were judged more positively on occupational com-
petence, social appeal, and interpersonal competence, and demonstrated
that attractiveness has an important influence in the workplace. In con-
trast to these meta-analyses, the present study provided an in-depth as-
sessment of the effects of physical attractiveness in the workplace. In
addition, it provided evidence of the effects of several moderators of the
effects of attractiveness on various outcomes.
REFERENCES
References marked with an asterisk indicate that the studies were included in the meta-
analysis.
‘Abramowitz IA, O’Grady KE. (1991). Impact of gender, physical attractiveness, and
intelligence on the perception of peer counselors. Journal of Pycholoa, 125,311-
326.
Adams GR. (1977). Physical attractiveness research: Toward a developmental social
psychology of beauty. Human Development, 20,217-239.
Ashmore RD. (1981). Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory. In Hamilton
DL (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereoryping and intergroup behavior (pp. 37-81).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ashmore RD, Del Boca FK. (1979). Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory:
Toward a cognitive-socialpsychological conceptualization,Sex Roles, 5,219-248.
Ashmore RD, Del Boca FK, Wohlers AJ. (1986). Gender stereotypes. In Ashmore
RD, Del Boca FK (Eds.), The social pychology of female-male relations: A critical
anafysis of central concepts (pp. 69-119). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
‘Bardack NR, McAndrew FT.(1985). The influence of physical attractiveness and manner
of dress on success in a simulated personnel decision. Journal of Social Psycholoa,
125,777-778.
‘Beehr TA, Gilmore DC. (1982). Applicant attractiveness as a perceived job-relevant
variable in selection of management trainees. Academy of Management Journal,
25,607-617.
MEGUMI HOSODA ET AL. 459
Benson PL, Karabenick SA, Lerner RM. (1976). Pretty pleases: The effects of physi-
cal attractiveness, race, and sex on receiving help. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 12,409-415.
Bernstein V, Hake1 MD, Harlan A. (1975). The college students as interviewer: A threat
to generalizability? Journal ofApplied Psychology, 60,266-268.
Brewer MB. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In Srull TK, Wyer
RS (Eds.),Advancesin social cognition (Vol. 1. pp. 65-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bull R, Rumsey N. (1988). The social psychology of facial appearance. New York
Springer-Verlag.
‘Cann A, Siegfried WD,Pearce L. (1981). Forced attention to specific applicant qualifi-
cations: Impact on physical attractiveness and sex of applicant biases. PERSONNEL
PSYCHOLOGY, 34,65-75.
‘Cash TF, Gillen B, Burns DS. (1977). Sexism and “beautyism” in personnel consultant
decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62,301-310.
*Cash TF, Kilcullen RN. (1985). The aye of the beholder: Susceptibility to sexism and
beautyism in the evaluation of managerial applicants. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 15,591-605.
‘Chung P, h u n g K. (1988). Effects of performance information and physical attractive-
ness on managerial decisions about promotion. Joumal of Social Psychology, 128,
791-801.
‘Croxton JS, Van Rensselaer BA, Dutton DL, Ellis JW. (1989).Mediating effect of prestige
on occupational stereotypes. Psychological Repom, 64,723-732.
*Dipboye RL, h e y RD, Terpstra DE. (1977). Sex and physical attractiveness of raters
and applicants as determinants of resume, evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 62,288-294.
*Dipboye RL, Fromkin HL, Wiback K. (1975). Relative importance of applicant sex, at-
tractiveness, and scholasticstanding in evaluation of job applicant rbsumbs. Journal
ofApplied PvcholoB, 60,39-43.
Dickey-Bryant L, Lautenschlager GJ, Mendoza JL, Abrahams N. (1986). Facial attrac-
tiveness and its relation to occupational success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
16-19.
Dion K,Berscheid E, Walster E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Joumal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 24,285-290.
*DrogoszLM, Levy PE. (1996). Another look at the effects of appearance, gender, and job
type on performance-based decisions. Psychology of Women Quark+, 20,437-445.
Eagly AH, Ashmore RD, Makhijani MG, Longo LC. (1991). What is beautiful is good,
but.. .: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereo-
type. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.
Feingold A. (1992). Good-lookingpeople are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin,
I l l , 304-341.
Fiske ST, Neuberg SL. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-
based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on
attention and interpretation. In Zanna MP (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 23,pp. 1-74). New York Academic Press.
Fiske ST, l?iylor SE. (1991). Socialcognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Frieze IH, Olson JE, Russell J. (1991). Attractiveness and income for men and women
in management. Journal ofAppied Social Psycholoo, 21,1039-1057.
Gillen B. (1981). Physical attractiveness: A determinant of two types of goodness. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7,277-281.
‘Gilmore DC, Beehr TA, Love KG. (1986). Effects of applicant sex, applicant physical
attractiveness, type of rater and type of job on interview decisions. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 59,103-109.
460 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Gordon ME, Slade LA, Schmitt N. (1986). The “science of the sophomore” revisited
From conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 29,191-207.
‘Greenwald MA. (1981). The effects of physical attractiveness,experience, and social per-
formance on employment decision-makingin job interviews. Behavioral Counseling
Quarterly, I , 275-287.
Hamilton DL,, Stroessner SJ, Driscoll DM. (1994). Social cognition and the study of
stereotyping. In Devine PG, Hamilton DL, Ostrom TM (Eds.), Social cognition:
Impact on socialpsychology (pp. 291-321). New York: Academic Press.
Hatfield E, Sprecher S. (1986). Mirror; mirror: The importance of looks in eveyday life.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Hedges LV, Olkin I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, F L Academic
Press.
Heilman M E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. In Staw BM,
Cummings LL (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5 , pp. 269-298).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
‘Heilman ME, Saruwatari LR. (1979). When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearance
and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23,360-372.
‘Heilman ME, Stopeck MH. (1985a). Being attractive, advantage or disadvantage? Per-
formance-based evaluations and recommended personnel actions as a function of
appearance, sex, and job type. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 35,202-215.
Heilman ME, Stopeck MH. (1985b). Attractiveness and corporate success: Different
causal attributions for males and females. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70,379-
388.
*Hui CH, Yam Y. (1987). Effects of language proficiency and physical attractiveness on
person perception. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26,257-261.
Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Jackson GB. (1982). Meta-analysis: CumularingresearchFndings
across studies. Beverly Hills, C A Sage.
‘Jackson LA. (1983a). The influence of sex, physical attractiveness, sex role, and occu-
pational sex-linkage on perceptions of occupational suitability. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 13,3144.
‘Jackson LA. (1983b). Gender, physical attractiveness,and sex role in occupational treat-
ment discrimination: The influence of trait and role assumptions. JournalofApplied
Social Psychology, 13,443-458.
Jackson LA. (1992). Physical appearance and gender: Sociobiological and sociocultural
perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Jackson LA, Hunter JE, Hodge CN. (1995). Physical attractiveness and intellectual
competence: A meta-analyticreview. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58,108-122.
‘Johnson KKP, Roach-Higgins ME. (1987). The influence of physical attractiveness and
dress on campus recruiters’ impressions of female job applicants. Home Economics
Research Journal, 16,87-95.
*Kushnir T (1982). Business partnerships: Sex and attractiveness stereotypes. Social
Behavior and Personality, 10,125-131.
Langlois JH. (1986). From the eye of the beholder to behavioral reality: Development
of social behaviors and social relations as a function of physical attractiveness. In
Herman CP,Zanna MP, Higgins ET (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, and social
behavior: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 3, pp. 23-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M. (2000). Max-
ims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Pvchological Bul-
letin, 126.390423.
MEGUMI HOSODA ET AL. 461
Locksley A, Borgida E, Brekke N, Hepburn C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judg-
ment. Journal of Personalily and Social Psychology, 39,821-831.
Locksley A, Hepburn C, Ortiz V. (1982). Social stereotypes and judgment of individuals:
An instance of the base-rate fallacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18,
23-42.
*Marlowe CM, Schneider SL, Nelson CE. (1996). Gender and attractiveness biases in
hiring decisions: Are more experienced managers less biased? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81,ll-21.
*Marshall GW, Stamps MB, Moore JN. (1998). Preinterview biases: The impact of race,
physical attractiveness, and sales job type on preinterview impressions of sales job
applicants. Journalof Personat Selling and Sales Management, 8,21-38.
'Marvelle K, Green SK. (1980). Physical attractiveness and sex bias in hiring decisions for
two types of jobs. Journal of the National Association for Women Deans, Adminis-
trators, and CounseloG 7,3-6.
Mazzella R, Feingold A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeco-
nomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors:
A meta-analysis. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 24, 1315-1344.
*Miller DA, Routh DK. (1985). Where women win: Supervisors of school psychologists
prefer female job candidates. Professional Psychology: Research and Bactice, 16,
42-49.
Morrow PC. (1990). Physical attractiveness and selection decision making. Journal of
Management, 16,45-60.
*Morrow PC, McElroy JC, Stamper BG, Wilson MA. (1990). The effects of physical at-
tractiveness and other demographiccharacteristicson promotion decisions. Journal
of Management, 16,723-736.
Olian JD, Schwab DP, Haberfeld Y. (1988). The impact of applicant gender compared to
qualifications on hiring recommendations: A meta-analysis of experimental stud-
ies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 180-195.
Pendry LF, Macrae CN. (1994). Stereotypes and mental life: The case of the motivated
but thwarted tactician. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 30,303-325.
*Quereshi M Y , Kay JF! (1986). Physical attractiveness, age, and sex as determinants of
reactions to resumes. Social Behavior and Personality, 14,103-112.
Raza SM, Carpenter BN. (1987). A model of hiring decisions in real employment inter-
views. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,596-603.
Riggio R, Throckmorton B. (1988). The relative effects of verbal and nonverbal behavior,
appearance, and social skills on evaluations made in hiring interviews. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 18,331-348.
Ritts V, Patterson ML, Thbbs ME. (1992). Expectations, impressions, and judgments of
physically attractive students: A review. Review of Educational Research, 62,413-
426.
Rosenthal R, Rubin, DB. (1986). Meta-analytic procedures for combining studies with
multiple effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin, 99,400-406.
Roszell P, Kennedy D, Grabb E. (1989). Physical attractiveness and income attainment
among Canadians. Journal of Psycholog?: 123,547-559.
*Sigelman CK, Thomas DB, Sigelman L, Ribich FD. (1986). Gender, physical attractive-
ness, and electability: An experimental investigation of voter biases. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology,l6,229-248.
Stone EF, Stone DL, Dipboye R. (1992). Stigmas in organizations: Race, handicaps, and
physical unattractiveness. In Kelley K (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in industrial
and organizationalpsychology (pp. 385457). Oxford, U.K.: North-Holland.
462 PERSONNELPSYCHOLOGY
Tosi HL, Einbender SW.(1985). The effects of the type and amount of information in
sex discrimination research: A meta-analysis.Academy of Management Journal,28,
712-723.
Udry JR, Eckland BK. (1984). Benefits of being attractive: Differential payoffs for men
and women. Psychological Reports, 54,47-56.