[dkarl]

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.

[mmahemoff]

The cited Economist article (which this article all but photocopies) says the study took place where it's supposedly the norm.

http://www.economist.com/node/21551535 "...when job hunters include photos with their curricula vitae, as is the norm in much of Europe and Asia."

That it's still the norm in Europe is news to me! Certainly not in the UK.

Of course, limiting geography means you're just as likely to be studying culture differences as the underlying topic.

[dkarl]

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.

[why-el]

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.

[jtbigwoo]

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.

[mark_integerdsv]

Would you mind elaborating on the handwriting issue perhaps?

[jtbigwoo]

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.

[thornofmight]

That is absurd, and I'm surprised it's not illegal.

[kstenerud]

"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."