There's a complication with this study, which is that it seems really weird in the first place to attach a photo to a resume. (Maybe this is different in Israel -- anyone?) A photo is out of the ordinary and prompts people to think up an explanation for it. One possible explanation HR staff and potential interviewers might come up with is that the person relies on their looks as a career asset. That assumption is easier made about women than about men because it better fits gender stereotypes, which could account for the discrepancy without bringing the gender of the HR workers into the explanation.
(A picture of an unattractive person would not provoke suspicion that the person expects to get by on their sex appeal instead of their performance, so "plain" women and men would not be stigmatized for attaching a picture.)
Because attaching a picture prompts the recipient to wonder why, and possibly to make different assumptions about the applicant based on the explanation they come up with, I think the situation is too complicated for it to be possible to draw conclusions from the results. I don't disagree with the researchers' explanation, though. Even when we try to be fair, the idea of an attractive person getting by on their looks is more viscerally offensive, and threatening, when the person is of the same sex. Men might think it's lame and shitty if a woman relies on her looks, but if a man is rising in the office by charming and chatting up female managers, it goes beyond "lame" and becomes a personal threat. Ditto for women. Both sexes "appreciate" sex appeal as part of a charming personality when it appeals to us and stigmatize it as dangerous when it competes with us.
Wow... I can't think of any reason for the practice except to facilitate discrimination on the basis of looks. Assuming it has been attacked on that basis, I wonder what the justification for continuing it is.
P.S. Apparently I trust HN too much to give me the best article about the topic. The article in The Economist would have been a much better submission.
I know that in Morocco for instance, a potential employer would wanna know if a woman puts the veil (not niqab, veil only covers the hair) or not, eventually preferring women who don't.
When I was looking at jobs teaching English in Japan and Korea, many of the postings asked for photos. It was the same when my sister was applying for jobs in France (they also asked for a handwriting sample, but that's another issue.) Submitting photos along with a resume is a pretty common thing outside the U.S. and Canada in my experience.
At least back in the 1990's, French employers used all sorts of pseudo-scientific methods to screen employees. My sister applied to one school that asked for a birth date so they could consult an astrologer about the applicant's temperament. The most common screening method was graphology, though. There were thousands of graphologists who would analyze a handwriting sample to determine the applicant's character. It's all complete foolishness, but most employers in France still use it.
"Bradley Ruffle at Ben-Gurion University and Ze’ev Shtudiner at Ariel University Centre looked at what happens when job hunters include photos with their curricula vitae, as is the norm in much of Europe and Asia."
Reminds me of a friend from college. She's now an astrophysicist. It seemed to me she had some trouble being taken seriously, because she was drop-dead gorgeous. Demure girl next door looks with a body that was swimsuit model material. (Even sans airbrushing)
I think some people saw her, learned what her major was, then concluded it was too good to be true. Also, it was hard for a lot of guys to think with 100% efficiency in her presence.
> ... Also, it was hard for a lot of guys to think with 100% efficiency in her presence.
I wish people thought more highly of men. I think that this kind of sentiment is inexcusable in the workplace. We're (mostly) all adults here. People are perfectly capable of working around attractive people.
Similarly, people are also perfectly capable of working while thirsty, hungry, scared, cold or tired.
If you're an actual post-pubescent person, you could do a simple experiment: Try to do serious work with half the screen playing video of attractive people, then try it with video of three-toed sloths. Do they require the same amount of executive functioning? The same amount of energy? Assuming of course that you're romantically indifferent to sloths, that the number of cuts per second is roughly equal, etc.
Suppressing phylogenetically old parts of the brain is never free, even when it's desirable. Is this sentiment inexcusable in the workplace?
That's equivalent to citing studies showing that women are indeed weaker when it comes to math or computer programming.
The counter argument then is that it is because of society that they are weaker. The same could be argued here: it is because of society's conditioning of men that they can't think straight when around attractive women.
There are differences between males and females in pretty much every species on earth, I don't think you can ascribe "society" to every gender. As a man, natural instincts to flirt with the attractive women can get you a sexual harassment charge - when women do it to attractive men it's fine with everyone. Some part of the man's brain is going towards stopping his natural instincts which can lower work performance.
I think you are mistaken to think that being a man, in itself, is what causes flirting behavior to be hit with a sexual harassment complaint. The greater factor is that the man in the equation is likely to be the one in power, and thus the woman has a reason to feel threatened if she rebuffs him.
> ... Also, it was hard for a lot of guys to think with 100% efficiency in her presence.
I wish people thought more highly of men...People are perfectly capable of working around attractive people.
This was something I observed firsthand. Hardly scientific, of course, but still. I've also experienced palpable disdain and hostility from professors, up until the first test was graded, and they realized I was one of the top scoring students. There's just this slowly fading cultural phenomenon where some people expect certain professions to be populated by males who fit a certain mold.
Yes, people are perfectly capable of working around attractive people. In those contexts, there's time to acclimate and time to get to know them as people. As a college student, there are other contexts where there aren't the same strictures as a workplace and all you have to go on at first is what they look like in cutoff shorts and a "farmer's daughter" getup. (I once saw her have that effect on a visiting prof in that outfit.)
People act differently around unusually attractive and unattractive people. Some of these folks have issues that seem odd at first glance, like a tall, exceptionally attractive woman who cannot find a date.
It happens to guys too. At the end of the day, humans are really bizarre creatures.
it was hard for a lot of guys to think with 100% efficiency in her presence.
Do other men really think this way? If so, then I carry a considerable advantage over my peers who are afflicted with diminished mental capacity in the presence of an attractive woman.
I'm a heterosexual male in my mid 20s and attractive women do not phase me at all. After my brain acknowledges the presence of an attractive woman, it simply moves on to the next thing. So what if she is attractive? If you care to take a few passing glances at her... ok, then what? Are you going to stare at her all day? Why? That isn't boring? She's just a woman; one of billions who qualify for the subjective title of "attractive". I just don't understand.
Like I said, there's an innumerable quantity of attractive women abound, why is it necessary for a man to obsess over the one in closest proximity?
Most men don't find it necessary to "make a move" on every attractive woman they pass on the sidewalk, why then should they be in a constant state of anguish because the attractive woman is present in the room and not passing by on the street?
No, but it will hopefully get you a slap in the face.
Hint: It's rude to hit on people you barely know in a context that's not explicitly social. (Edit: Even there it's not exactly a master stroke. It's always a good plan to get to know people before you "hit" on them)
So what's your point?
I am still at a loss as to why one must obsess over an attractive woman, especially if there is an expectation that one's advances will not be well received.
Yes, men really do. The sight of an attractive woman reorients male priorities. In particular it leads to short term as opposed to long term thinking. Occasionally it disrupts higher mental functions, such as speech. (This can be very amusing to watch.)
Perhaps you are wired differently than most[1], but my bet is you're experiencing the same phenomenon that people think they can supertask, but really can't. Or they're the 1 in 1000 that can actually drive (or play pool, or, or...) as well or better after "a couple beers" as 100% sober.
This wouldn't, by any chance, be a woman named Tea, would it? I knew a girl in middle school and high school who was drop-dead gorgeous, incredibly smart, and a cheerleader, if memory serves, who went to Harvard and is now a post-doc at NASA.
Are there really so few women in the discipline that running across a reference to an attractive female astrophysicist likely means it's the same one you're thinking of?
Considering that I'd guess the number of phd astrophysisists at under 10000, a generous 50% female ratio, and 95th percentile for level of attractiveness, we're looking at 250 potential matches, or .4%. Odds are low, but not off the charts low and only improve if there's less than 50% women. Whether awkward or not, it's not unreasonable to ask given the chances.
> The researchers’ unavoidable—and unpalatable—conclusion is that old-fashioned jealousy led the women to discriminate against pretty candidates.
I could believe that women tend to discriminate subconsciously against unattractive women; though I don't think the reverse finding would have surprised me either. But did the study actually show that men don't discriminate against attractive women?
From skimming through, it looks like they don't compare whether the hirer is male or female. But
* Employment agencies prefer no-photos, but don't discriminate between attractive and plain women.
* Companies hiring for themselves don't discriminate between no-photos and plain women, but discriminate against attractive women.
Which is evidence in favour of jealousy: the people who won't work with them don't feel threatened. The paper is considerably more thorough than this though.
I don't know many people who attach a photo to a resume. So if I see a photo on your resume, and you are attractive, I'm probably going to feel like you know you are attractive and are trying to win points with your attractiveness, which will cost you points in my book.
It's likely we're seeing some vestiges of evolutionary psychology (an attractive female as a threat to other females) that are subconsciously affecting judgment in an area that, though no threat actually exists, is recent enough in our evolutionary history that we're as yet maladapted to it. In this case, it's not so much jealousy as protecting one's turf.
In fact, I'd expect that the exact opposite occurs when the HR person is male: Prefer attractive females, and discriminate against good/successful looking males. It would be interesting to see a study that recorded in each case the gender of the HR person.
We like to think of ourselves as completely objective, but we never are.
This makes sense. Employment agencies are much more open to liability for discrimination from sheer volume alone, thus they train their PMs to follow the law and ignore things like gender, but they may be more likely to ignore applications with photos out of concern for said liability.
I'm guessing that it's the same for men (when viewed by other men).
I've recently started applying around using both my linkedin account and also a text version of my resume. Since linkedin is nice enough to show me who has looked at my profile recently, I often see which companies and which person has looked. Because I'm a programmer, often it's a guy reviewing my profile.
I don't have enough data points to be conclusive, but it's looking like I get better results from my text resume (that is, the companies that don't show up as having viewed my linkedin). I was starting to wonder if the photo on my linkedin was turning people away, since the content was generally the same.
It's rather common apparently in Europe though, even expected in some countries, like Germany.
On the subject of "crazy things about job-hunting in Europe," I recently learned that in France, it's expected that you hand-write your cover letter, and HR departments employ people who supposedly can figure out a person's personality and work ethic based on their handwriting.
It used to be (depending on the job) common in the UK. Companies stopped asking for it when they realised they were leaving themselves open to discrimination claims.
I can't think why anyone would want to include a photograph of themselves on an application / CV / resumé.
In Germany, it's still common to provide photographs to your application. Many persons are quite successful to grasp a person's character by just looking at a photo. So depending on your character, it could be either a benefit or a disadvantage to provide a photo.
I've taken a bunch of photos for friends for use in their applications. And it's always the same: if they are shy and introverted, they do look like this in pictures. Same applies to extroverted characters.
(A picture of an unattractive person would not provoke suspicion that the person expects to get by on their sex appeal instead of their performance, so "plain" women and men would not be stigmatized for attaching a picture.)
Because attaching a picture prompts the recipient to wonder why, and possibly to make different assumptions about the applicant based on the explanation they come up with, I think the situation is too complicated for it to be possible to draw conclusions from the results. I don't disagree with the researchers' explanation, though. Even when we try to be fair, the idea of an attractive person getting by on their looks is more viscerally offensive, and threatening, when the person is of the same sex. Men might think it's lame and shitty if a woman relies on her looks, but if a man is rising in the office by charming and chatting up female managers, it goes beyond "lame" and becomes a personal threat. Ditto for women. Both sexes "appreciate" sex appeal as part of a charming personality when it appeals to us and stigmatize it as dangerous when it competes with us.