Effects of performance information and physical attractiveness on managerial decisions about promotion

Journal of Social Psychology

Volumn 128, Issue 6, 1988, Pages 791-801

  Chung, Po Pui ^a   Leung, Kwok ^a  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84934452963     PISSN: 00224545     EISSN: 19401183     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1988.9924557     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Abbott, A. R. and Sebastian, R. J. 1981. Physical attractiveness and expectations of success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(3): 481–486.
2. Carlson, R. E. 1967. The relative influence of appearance and factual written information on an interviewer's final rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51: 461–468.
3. Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. 1975. Applied multiple regression/correlation for the behavioral sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E. and Walster, E. 1972. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24: 285–290.
5. Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D. and Terpstra, D. E. 1977. Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resume evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(3): 288–294.
6. Dipboye, R. L., Wiback, K. and Fromkin, H. L. 1975. Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(1): 39–43.
7. Gillen, B. 1981. Physical attractiveness: A determinant of two types of goodness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(2): 277–281.
8. Hatfield, E. and Sprecher, S. 1986. Mirror, mirror, New York: State University of New York Press.
9. Heilman, M. E. and Saruwatari, L. R. 1979. When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearances and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and non-managerial jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23: 360–372.
10. Hofstede, G. and Kassem, M. S. 1976. European contributions to organization theory, Assen, The Netherlands: Von Gorcum.
11. Jackson, D. J. and Huston, T. L. 1975. Physical attractiveness and assertiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 96: 79–86.
12. Landy, D. and Sigall, H. 1974. Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer's physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29: 299–304.
13. Latham, G. P. and Wexley, K. N. 1981. Increasing productivity through performance appraisal, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
14. London, M. and Stumpf, S. A. 1983. Effects of candidate characteristics on management promotion decisions: An experimental study. Personnel Psychology, 36: 241–259.
15. Roberts, K. H. 1970. On looking at an elephant: An evaluation of cross-cultural research related to organizations. Psychological Bulletin, 74: 327–350.
16. Sweat, S., Kelley, E., Blouin, D. and Glee, R. 1981. Career appearance perceptions of selected university students. Adolescence, 16(62): 359–370.
17. Tannenbaum, A. S. 1980. “Organizational psychology”. In Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Edited by: Triandis, H. C. and Brislin, R. W. Vol. 5, 281–334. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
18. Taylor, R. 1975. Preferences of industrial managers for information sources in making promotion decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 269–272.
19. Tversky, A. 1972. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4): 281–299.