|
Results and Discussion
The analysis of the data
collected from the surveys showed some very interesting results.
In terms of overall qualification, it seemed that people in general were
more likely to hire the more attractive candidate.
In terms of educational qualifications, people tended to rate the
applicants similarly. Yet in work
experience, the data did not always correspond with the data in the other two
categories.
In Tables 1 and 2, it can be
seen that in terms of overall qualification, people rated the attractive female
higher than the unattractive female. This
finding was statistically significant (t(27) = -2.36, p = .01).
This means that there is only a one percent chance that the difference
between the averages of the two women’s ratings was due to chance.
Subjects also rated the attractive male higher than the unattractive
male. This was also statistically
significant (t(25) = -2.77, p = .005). This
is even stronger than the previous comparison.
The attractive male was rated much higher than the unattractive female
(t(24) = -3.75, p = .0005). This
means that there is a 99.95% chance that this was not due to chance variations.
The last comparison that was statistically significant was between the
attractive male and the attractive female.
The attractive male received significantly higher scores than the
unattractive female (t(25) = -1.69, p
= .05). This data indicates that
the attractive male is considered the most qualified, more so than the
attractive female, unattractive male and the unattractive female.
The attractive female was considered more qualified when compared to the
unattractive female, but the results between the attractive female and the
unattractive male were not statistically significant. The reason for the variations in ratings in this category may
be that qualification is a very subjective category. It is difficult to decide how qualified an applicant is in
general. These results were very different from the results found when comparing
the perceived educational qualifications of the applicants.
In terms of education, there
were no statistically significant differences between the applicants (see tables
3 and 4). However, there was one
result approaching statistical significance between the unattractive female and
the attractive male. People tended
to consider the attractive male as better educated than the unattractive female. In general the applicants were rated similarly in terms of
educational qualifications. One
possible explanation for this is that education level is more objective than the
other categories. It is more
difficult to dispute hard facts like alma maters, degrees and grade point
averages than it is to dispute amount of work experience and overall
qualifications.
With respect to work experience,
there were many comparisons that were statistically significant (see tables 5
and 6). The attractive male had significantly higher scores than the
unattractive male (t(25) = 2.49, p = .009), meaning that there is only a 0.1%
chance that this is due to chance variation.
The attractive male received significantly higher scores than the
unattractive female (t(24) = -1.94, p =.03).
The attractive male was also rated higher than the attractive female
(t(25) = -1.85, p = .03).
It is interesting to note that the
only category in which the unattractive female and the attractive females’
scores were significantly different was in overall qualifications.
Their scores did not have statistically significant differences in work
experience or education. Therefore,
this is probably due to the original theory that an attractive female is more
likely to be hired for a teaching position than an unattractive female based
solely on her looks. There is a general opinion, however, and most individuals
would say, that qualifications are far more important for a teaching position
than looks. It is also interesting
to note that the attractive male was rated higher in terms of work experience
than the unattractive male. There was not a statistically significant difference
in their ratings in terms of education, yet still, the attractive male was
considered to be more qualified overall than the unattractive male.
In general, the attractive male came out on top in every category.
Most people would rather hire a man than a woman.
This supports our original hypothesis.
Even though we had an attractive woman as an applicant, she was still
less likely to be hired than the attractive man. In general, the population still believes that men are more
qualified and capable of completing jobs than are women.
Also, the more attractive the male, the more qualified he appears to be.
If the study were to be
replicated, it would be helpful to use more random sampling techniques.
All of the subjects in this experiment were parents of Rowland Hall-St.
Mark’s students. They all had
this in common. If the subjects
were truly an accurate representation of the American population, then the
results would have much more external validity.
In the future, it would be interesting to follow up this study with other
similar studies. For example, it
would be very exciting to see how race affects employment, or how a certain
facial expression in a picture may affect employment. Other ideas for future
research might include a study that determines whether having a certain accent
in an interview setting might affect someone’s chances of being employed; or
whether wearing a certain type of clothing might affect employment.
All
of the results found in the study seem to reinforce the original hypothesis that
attractive people are more likely to be hired for teaching positions than
unattractive people, even if their qualifications are the same.
Also, a man is more likely to be hired than a woman is.
Because the resumes were identical for each applicant, we can only assume
that the pictures were the only factor that influenced the difference in
ratings.
|