Influence of Physical Disability and Dress of Female Job Applicants on Interviewers

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to examine the influence of dress and physical condition on employers' impressions of female job applicants. A dress (most appropriate, moderately appropriate, and inappropriate for an entry level management position) by physical condition (able-bodied, on crutches, in a wheelchair) by applicantfactorial design was used to determine employers'perceptions of the applicants. Videotapes of a female applicant in a simulated job interview situation served as the stimulus. Subjects rated the applicants on 22 employment characteristics. Factor analysis yielded four factors: Personality, Power, Competence, and Professionalism. Subjects also rated the applicants on six statements which were combined to become management potential. Analysis of variance revealed that the applicants were rated significantly higher when dressed in the most appropriate and moderately appropriate levels than when dressed inappropriately for all dependent measures. Employers also rated the applicants in the disabled conditions significantly higher than the able-bodied applicant for all dependent measures. Results were interpreted from the perspective of impression formation theory, particularly the way in which individuals combine various cues to arrive at an impression of an observed person. Implications pertain to rehabilitation personnel and clothing designers.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Christman, L. (1987). Impact of physical disability and dress on perceptions of female job applicants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.

Deeghan, M. , & Brooks, N. (Eds.). (1985). Women and disability: The double handicap (pp. 1-5). Oxford, England: Transaction.

Ericksen, M. , & Sirgy, M. (1985). Achievement motivation and clothing preferences of white-collar working women. In M. Solomon , (Ed.), The psychology of fashion (pp. 357-370). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Feinberg, L. (1967). Social desirability and attitudes toward the disabled . Personnel and Guidance Journal, 46, 375-381.

Fine, M. , & Asch, A. (1985). Disabled women: Sexism without the pedestal. In M. Deeghan & N. Brooks (Eds.), Women and disability: The double handicap (pp. 6-22). Oxford, England: Transaction.

Forsythe, S. , Drake, M. , & Hogan, J. (1985). Influence of clothing attributes on the perception of personal characteristics. In M. Solomon (Ed.), The psychology of fashion (pp. 267-278). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .

Golin, A. (1970). Stimulus variables in the measurement of attitudes toward disability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 14(1), 20-26.

Hakel, M. , & Schuh, A. (1971). Job applicant attributes judged important across seven diverse occupations. Personnel Psychology, 24, 45-52.

10.

Hatfield, J. , & Gatewood, R. (1978). Nonverbal cues in the selection interview. Personnel Administrator, 23, 30-37.

11.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

12.

Jaffe, J. (1967). What's in a name: Attitudes toward disabled persons . Personnel and Guidance Journal, 45, 557-60.

13.

Johnson, K. (1984). Influence of physical attractiveness and dress on hiring agents' impressions of a female's personality and employment potential for sex-typed jobs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

14.

Johnson, K. , & Roach-Higgins, M. (1987). Dress and physical attractiveness of women in job interviews. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 5(3), 1-8.

15.

Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

16.

Lennon, S. , & Miller, F. (1984-85). Attire, physical appearance and first impressions: More is less. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 3(1), 1-8.

17.

Livneh, H. (1982). On the origins of negative attitudes toward people with disabilities. Rehabilitation Literature, 43, 338-347.

18.

Miller, F. , Feinberg, R. , Davis, L. , & Rowold, K. (1982). Measurement of individual differences in sensitivity to appearance. Home Economics Research Journal, 10, 381-390.

19.

Molloy, J. (1977). The woman's dress for success book. New York: Warner.

20.

Nie, N. , Hull, C. , Jenkins, J. , Steinbrenner, K. , & Bent, D. (1975). Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

21.

Ray, G. ( 1986). Perceptions of physically impaired job applicants: Effects of dress, credentials, and rater's sex. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 4(2), 16-19.

22.

Rucker, M. , McGee, K. , Hopkins, M. , Harrison, A. , & Utts, J. (1985). Effects of similarity and consistency of style of dress on impression formation. In M. Solomon (Ed.), The psychology of fashion (pp. 309-320). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

23.

Rummel, R. (1967). Understanding factor analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 11, 444-480.

24.

Stanley, J. (1971). Reliability. In R Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurements (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education (pp. 356-442).

25.

Stanley, S. (1986). Children's appearance as a facilitator in person perception typology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.

26.

Taylor, J. (1961). What do attitudes measure: The problems of social desirability. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 386-390.

27.

Williams, G. (1977). The new executive woman. Radnor, PA: Chilton.

28.

Wright, B. (1983). Physical disability: A psychosocial approach (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.