Another look at the effects of appearance, gender, and job type on performance-based decisions

Psychology of Women Quarterly

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 437-445

  Drogosz, Lisa M ^b   Levy, Paul E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AKRON   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030240307     PISSN: 03616843     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00310.x     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Dobbins, G. H., Lane, I., & Steiner, D. D. (1988). A note on the role of laboratory methodology in applied behavioral research: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 281-287.
2. Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269-298.
3. Heilman, M. E., & Saruwatari, L. R. (1979). When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearance and sex on evaluations of job applications for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 360-372.
4. Heilman, M. E., & Stopeck, M. E. (1985a). Being attractive, advantage or disadvantage? Performance-based evaluations and recommended personnel actions as a function of appearance, sex, and job type. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 202-215.
5. Heilman, M. E., & Stopeck (1985b). Attractiveness and corporate success: Different causal attributions for males and females. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 379-388.
6. Morrow, P. C., McElroy, J. C., Stamper, B. G., & Wilson, M. A. (1990). The effects of physical attractiveness and other demographic characteristics on promotion decisions. Journal of Management, 16, 723-736.
7. Taeuber, C. (1991). Statistical handbook on women in America. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
8. U.S. Department of Labor (1991). Dictionary of occupational titles (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.