Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 622

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

THE EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS ON JOB‐RELATED OUTCOMES: A META‐ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES

Open access
HOSODA, MEGUMI, STONE‐ROMERO, EUGENE F., COATS, GWEN·2003·Personnel Psychology
DOI 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00157.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We report the findings of a meta‐analytic review of experimental studies concerned with the biasing effect of physical attractiveness on a variety of job‐related outcomes. In support of implicit personality theory, attractive individuals were found to fare better than unattractive individuals in terms of a number of such outcomes. The weighted mean effect size, d, was .37 for all studies. In addition, tests for moderating effects showed that (a) the attractiveness bias did not differ between studies that provided low versus high amounts of job‐relevant information about the targets, (b) the same bias was greater for within‐subjects research designs than for between‐subjects designs, (c) professionals were as susceptible to the bias as were college students, (d) attractiveness was as important for men as for women, and (e) the biasing effect of attractiveness has decreased in recent years. Implications of these findings are considered.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00157.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
HOSODA, M., STONE‐ROMERO, E. F., & COATS, G.
Venue
Personnel Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-06
Volume
56
Issue
2
Pages
431-462
ISSN
  • 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-6570
DOI
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00157.x
OpenAlex
W2092205708
Cited by
622
References
3
FWCI
24.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.