The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes.
Abstract
College students (« = 30) and professional interviewers (n ~ 30) rated and ranked bogus resumes on suitability for a managerial position. Applicant sex, physical attractiveness, and scholastic standing were systematically varied in the resumes. A 2 X 2 X 2 X 3 repeated measures analysis of variance on the ratings yielded four significant main effects (p < .OS), while the same analysis on the rankings yielded three significant main effects (p<.Q\). Students rated applicants more favorably than professionals. Both groups preferred males to females, attractive applicants to unattractive applicants, and applicants of high scholastic standing. The latter variable accounted for the greatest proportion of variance. However, internal analyses of the rankings revealed sex and physical attractiveness were more important than indicated by the analysis of variance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0033731 · Cited by 3,865
Cited by
Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573 · Cited by 7,300
Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390 · Cited by 2,429
A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions
DeNisi, A. S., Cafferty, T. P., & Meglino, B. M. (1984) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(84)90029-1 · Cited by 444
Gender and attractiveness biases in hiring decisions: Are more experienced managers less biased?
Marlowe, C. M., Schneider, S. L., & Nelson, C. E. (1996) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.11 · Cited by 393
Meta-analyzing the relationship between grades and job performance.
Roth, P. L., BeVier, C. A., Switzer, F. S., & Schippmann, J. S. (1996) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.548 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L., & Wiback, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 1975-02
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-43
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2003247590
- Cited by
- 483
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 70.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/h0076352
- The paper
- Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L., & Wiback, K. (1975). Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076352
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
