Effects of eye contact and social status on the perception of a job applicant in an employment...

Journal of Vocational Behavior 13, 338-347 (1978)

Effects of Eye Contact and Social Status on the Perception of a Job Applicant in an Employment Interviewing Situation

RICHARD TESSLER AND LISA SUSHELSKY

University of Massachusetts

The present study examines the independent and joint effects of variations in eye contact and social status on the way in which job applicants tend to be perceived in employment interviewing situations. The key dependent variable in the analysis is the interviewer’s perception of how well the applicant is suited for a job requiring or involving self-confidence. The results, based on a laboratory analogue of an employment interview, show statistically significant main effects for eye contact and social status, as well as a significant two-way interaction effect. Effects of the manipulations on job-specific ratings are also reported, and implications of the research for biases in employment interviewing are discussed.

Our knowledge of other persons is so often based on inferences we make based on observations of their nonverbal behavior (Henley, 1977). The present paper is concerned with one type of nonverbal message prominent in face-to-face interaction, namely the maintenance of eye contact.

Most prior research in this area has focused on eye contact as a dependent variable. Such research has shown that eye contact tends to be maintained in situations where a desire for approval exists (Efran, 1968), where there are positive feelings toward others in the interaction (Exline & Winters, 196.5; Kleinke, Meeker, & LaFong, 1973), and where persons are motivated to demonstrate honesty and sincerity (Exline et al., 1970; Stass & Willis, 1967). It has also been shown that persons with lower standing tend to look more at their superiors than vice versa (Exline, 1971).

Relatively less attention has been given to the effects of eye contact in

We are grateful to Bob and Sheila Leik for their contributions to the research design, and to Bob Vinson, Leslie Rosenthal, and Laurie Ross for their assistance in the conduct of the experiment reported herein.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Richard Tessler, Department of Sociology, Uni- versity of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003.

338

OOOl-8791/78/0133-0338$02.00/O Copyright @ 1978 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

EYE CONTACT AND SOCIAL STATUS OF JOB APPLICANTS 339

face-to-face interaction, that is to the status of eye contact as an independent variable. Staring has been shown to communicate power and aggres- sion in addition to feelings of intimidation and dislike (Ellsworth & Carlsmith, 1973). Total visual disregard, too, has been found to be aver- sive. A moderate degree of eye contact appears to be optimal in establish- ing favorable impressions (Exline, 1971).

The present paper is concerned with the implications of different kinds of eye contact behavior by job applicants in employment interviewing situations. Persons who apply for jobs are frequently advised to look the interviewer in the eye in order to make a positive impression. Presumably the concern underlying such advice is the need to project a sense of self-confidence, as this is likely to affect the interviewer’s sense of the applicant’s suitability for a particular job. While there is much folklore surrounding eye contact behavior as a strategy for creating a positive impression in job interview situations, no experimental investigation has been undertaken.

A number of interesting questions can be addressed through experimental research. For example, what kind of eye contact on the part of the job applicant is optimal in employment interviewing situations? Is it necessary to maintain constant eye contact, or is it sufficient to meet the interviewer’s eyes some of the time (e.g., when speaking)? Are the effects of eye contact on how a job applicant is perceived likely to vary systematically depending on other characteristics of the applicant, the interviewer, or the employment interviewing situation?

Questions such as these were investigated in a laboratory analogue to an employment interviewing situation involving face-to-face interaction between a single male applicant and 60 interviewer-subjects. The key dependent variable consisted of the interviewer subjects’ estimations of how well the applicant was suited for a job requiring or involving self- confidence, though some job-specific ratings were also included as dependent measures. At issue was whether perception of the applicant would be affected by variations in his eye contact behavior and social status characteristics (educational attainment and occupational history). A further question was whether eye contact and social status would interact in affecting perception of the applicant. Or, to put this in other terms, who is likely “to pay the biggest price” for failing to maintain eye contact in an employment interview-(a low status job applicant or a high status job applicant)?

Sample and Design

METHODS

Subjects were recruited from an undergraduate sociology class with academic credit as an incentive for participation. Subjects were told to expect that they would assume the role of interviewer in an employment

340 TESSLER AND SUSHELSKY

interviewing situation. A total of 60 subjects (41 females and 19 males) actually participated in the experiment, and all of these were included in the analysis. The subjects were randomly assigned.to two conditions of social status (high, low), and to three conditions of eye contact to be described in greater detail below. Subjects were assigned to experimental conditions so that a proportional number of males and females appeared in each cell.

In addition to subject-interviewers, the experiment required an interviewee (stooge) who would manipulate the independent variables (eye contact and social status). A 29-year-old male served as the interviewee (or the applicant) in this employment interviewing situation, and he in- teracted with all 60 subjects, one subject at a time, of course. The experiment further required the participation of an experimenter who would deliver the cover story, introduce the applicant, administer the postinterview questionnaire, and debrief subjects. This role was filled by two women undergraduates, who alternated in running subjects.

Procedure

When the subject arrived at the experimental laboratory, he/she was greeted by one of the two experimenters who proceeded to elaborate on the cover story. The experimenter explained that the objective was to videotape various types of social interactions for use as an educational tool in a small graduate student seminar. The experimenter further explained that the interaction in which the subject would participate would consist of a job interview where the subject would play the role of interviewer in a state employment office. It was further explained that this role playing method was chosen because it might otherwise constitute an invasion of privacy if real life employment interviews were filmed. Sub- jects were told that the individual whom they would be interviewing was, in actuality, presently unemployed, and looking for a job. Each subject was presented with an employment interviewing form to serve as a guide while conducting the interview. This interviewing form included such standard employment questions as personal data (name, social security number, present address, and citizenship), military service, educational background, employment history, and references. Subjects were told that the interaction would be videotaped, and that it would not be necessary to record in writing all of the information offered by the applicant in response to questions included on the employment interviewing form, though they were free to make notes. Each subject was further informed that, after the interview was complete, the experimenter would return and ask the subject to fill out a questionnaire.

At this point in the experiment, the applicant was introduced (as John Kainen in all experimental conditions) to the subject-interviewer, and a simulated employment interview ensued. The applicant was seated across


a desk-like table from the subject-interviewer, so that the interaction was face-to-face. In all experimental conditions, the applicant was dressed neatly in slacks and a long-sleeved shirt. In other respects as well, the applicant tried to standardize his demeanor. Thus, he sat with both feet on the floor, arms resting on the edge of the desk, and maintained his hair in a medium-length style throughout the data collection period. Interviews varied somewhat in length, depending on the interests, skills, and whims of individual subjects, but on the average lasted between 10 and 15 min. The key independent variables, eye contact and social status, were manipulated by the applicant in the interview situation. Descriptions of these manipulations follow.

The Manipulation of Eye Contact

Three distinct conditions of eye contact were employed. These consisted of a condition in which constant eye contact was maintained, a condition in which eye contact was maintained some of the time, and finally, a condition in which no eye contact was maintained at all. In the condition in which eye contact was to be maintained some of the time, the applicant was instructed to look the interviewer in the eye while answering questions, and to avoid eye contact at other times. The presence of these three conditions of eye contact in the experimental design was intended to permit examination of questions which could not be readily answered if only two levels of eye contact (some and none) were induced.

The Manipulation of Social Status

Social status was manipulated by the applicant through systematically varying information given to the subject-interviewer concerning military history, educational, and occupational background. Two conditions of social status were experimentally induced, a low social status condition and a high social status condition. In the low status condition, the applicant presented himself as a high school graduate who was drafted, spent two years in the Army, trained in wheeled vehicle maintenance, and also served as a company clerk at a supply depot. After completing his military service, the low status applicant spent the next 12 years at various jobs, including loading dock worker, furniture delivery man, and general maintenance person for a parks and recreation department. During this period, his salary ranged from $5500 to $7000 per year. His references included a former supervisor, a foreman, and a landlord.

In the high status condition, by contrast, the applicant claimed to have attended the same high school, but to have continued on through college (Stanford University) to earn a BA in English literature and an ROTC commission as a Second Lieutenant in the Army. After three years in the Army, the high status applicant attended graduate school (Yale Univer- sity) for a year and was then hired by a publishing firm where he worked


for eight years. During this period, he received two promotions, from editorial assistant to managing editor, and then to editor of one of the firm’s divisions. He left this last position when the firm folded due to financial problems. His salary ranged from $12,000 to $22,000 per year during this period. His references included a bank president, dean of Yale Business School, and the president of the publishing company in which he had been employed.

Evaluation of Applicant

At the end of the interview, the applicant left the experimental room; the experimenter returned soon thereafter and administered a form labeled “Evaluation of Applicant.” In addition to a measure of the applicant’s suitability for a job requiring a high degree of self-confidence, this form included some questions related to hypothetical job openings. After the evaluation form was completed, the subject was debriefed, and asked to keep the experimental deceptions in confidence.

RESULTS

Efects on Perceived Self-Confidence

How, if at all, did the two manipulated independent variables affect ratings of self-confidence on the evaluation form? Self-confidence was measured by asking subjects: “How suitable would the applicant be for a position involving or requiring self-confidence?” Subjects responded on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not suited) to 5 (very suited). Mean scores and standard deviations for the self-confidence ratings in all six of the experimental conditions are shown in Table 1 (see Row 1). Two-way analysis of variance of the self-confidence ratings revealed a main effect for eye contact [F(2,54) = 4.98, p < .Ol], a main effect for social status [F(l,54) = 12.76, p < .OOl], and in addition a significant interaction attributable to the joint effect of eye contact and social status [F(2,54) = 4.17, p < .023. A clearer picture of these results can be found in the accompanying graph (see Fig. 1).

Inspection of the graph shows that the eye contact manipulation had little or no effect on subjects exposed to the low status condition. In the high status condition, however, the applicant seems to have been perceived as especially lacking in self-confidence in the no eye contact condition. Indeed, the effect is so pronounced that, in the no eye contact condition, in contrast to the other eye contact conditions, there is virtu- ally no difference in the self-confidence ratings attributable to the social status manipulation. These results indicate:

(1) that, in general, more self-confidence was attributed to the applicant when he presented a high status background in response to the interviewer’s questions, as compared to when he presented a low status background.


TABLE 1 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Self-Confidence

And Job-Specific Ratings by Social Status And Eye Contact

Dependent variable

High social status Low social status

No Medium Constant No Medium Constant eye eye eye eye eye eye

contact contact contact contact contact contact

Perceived self-confidence M 3.50 4.80 4.70 SD .97 .42 .48

Perceived effectiveness in white-collar-type jobs M 10.00 10.30 11.50 SD 1.49 1.70 .71

Perceived effectiveness in blue-collar-type jobs M 6.90 7.30 8.10 SD 2.51 1.06 2.03

Perceived satisfaction in white-collar-type jobs M 8.20 8.90 8.50 SD .42 1.85 2.07

Perceived satisfaction in blue-collar-type jobs M 5.00 4.60 4.40 SD 1.33 1.08 .70

3.60 3.70 3.60 1.08 .82 .52

7.90 8.40 7.40 2.13 2.37 1.35

10.00 10.20 9.10 1.25 1.32 1.37

7.70 8.90 7.70 1.49 2.08 1.77

8.40 7.60 7.10 1.43 1.71 1.10

Note For each cell n = 10.

(2) that, in general, the applicant was seen as least self-confident when he did not maintain any eye contact during the interview.

(3) that eye contact had no discernible effect whatsoever on self- confidence ratings when the applicant presented himself as low in social status.

(4) that for the high social status applicant, failure to maintain eye contact resulted in a marked tendency to be perceived as lacking in self-confidence.

Effects on Job Ratings

Were the effects of the manipulations so profound that they would actually influence job recommendations? In order to explore this issue, subject-interviewers were presented with a list of job openings and asked to rate, using three-point scales, how effective and how satisfied they thought the applicant would be in each position. The list of job openings included the following positions: personnel manager, parts assembler, quality control officer, train conductor, auto assembly-team worker, customer relations director, bank manager trainee, and mail sorter. Because it was not reasonable to expect all subject-interviewers to be familiar with


1.0’ I , . Constant Medium None

Eye Contact High Social Status

___________ _ ._.. Low Social Stabs

FIG. 1. Self-confidence as a function of eye contact and social status.

each of these kinds of jobs, we provided them with paragraphs describing what each job involved, and they studied these paragraphs prior to filling out their evaluation of the applicant.

Though the results have been analyzed for each job opening separately, they are reported here, in the interest of parsimony, in the form of four summated indices. These consist of an index of subjects’ perceptions of the applicant’s likely effectiveness in the white-collar-type jobs (personnel manager, quality control officer, customer relations director, and bank manager trainee), an index of subjects’ perceptions of the applicant’s likely effectiveness in blue-collar-type jobs (parts assembler, train conductor, auto assembly-team worker, and mail sorter), an index of subjects’ perceptions of the applicant’s level of satisfaction with the white-collar job openings, and finally an index of subjects’ perceptions of the applicant’s level of satisfaction with the blue-collar job openings. Mean scores and standard deviations for each of the four job rating indices as a function of the social status and eye contact manipulations are shown in Table 1.

Two-way analysis of variance for each index was performed. The results show no significant effects for eye contact in relation to any of the index scores, either as a main effect or in interaction with social status.


The social status manipulation, on the other hand, significantly affected three of the four indices. Subjects rated the high social status applicant, as compared to the low status applicant, as likely to be significantly more effective in the white-collar-type positions [F( 1,54) = 37.30, p < .OOll, as likely to be significantly less effective in the blue-collar-type positions [F( 1,154) = 29.32,~ < .OOl], and as likely to be significantly less satisfied in the blue-collar-type jobs [F(1,54) = 86.16, p < .OOl]. There was no significant difference in subjects’ perceptions of how satisfied the high and low status applicants were likely to be in the white-collar-type jobs. Apparently, subjects reasoned that, despite the greater effectiveness which they attributed to the high status applicant, either the high or low status applicant would be quite satisfied with these positions.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study are of interest both in respect to the significant differences that did emerge, and in respect to some conditions that showed no differences. Regarding this latter point, it is noteworthy that the constant eye contact condition did not differ significantly from the medium eye contact condition in respect to perceptions of self- confidence. In the constant eye contact condition, the applicant neither made a significantly more favorable impression, or a significantly less favorable impression than he did in the medium eye contact condition where he met the interviewer’s eyes only while answering questions.

The results further showed that, in the no eye contact condition, the applicant tended to be perceived as less self-confident. While on the average this tended to be the case, inspection of the statistically significant interaction between eye contact and social status clearly shows that the effect of eye contact on self-confidence ratings tended to vary systematically depending on the level of social status. It is in the high social status condition that the dearest price appears to have been paid for failing to maintain eye contact. Thus, the tendency for less self-confidence to be perceived in the no eye contact condition than in the other conditions of eye contact appears to have been true mainly for the applicant when he presented himself as high in social status.

One interpretation of this interaction is suggested by attribution theory (Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelly, 1967). According to this interpretation, failure to maintain eye contact may have been perceived as status- appropriate for the low status job applicant. After all, low status people are expected to be cowed by interviewing situations, expected to defer to high status interviewers. Therefore, when a low status applicant main- tains no eye contact whatsoever, such behavior may not reveal anything about the applicant, other than confirm expectations in respect to his low status position. It is role inappropriate, however, for a high status person to avoid any eye contact in an employment interviewing situation. Such


behavior, then, according to attribution theory, may be revealing about this particular high status person. What would it reveal? Evidently, in the present study, it revealed information to the subject-interviewers about his lack of self-confidence.

But it could also be argued that the same attributional analysis suggests that, for the low status applicant, constant eye contact would also be perceived as status-inappropriate, and that this might be explained by attributing an especially high degree of self-confidence to the applicant under these conditions. The data do not support this reasoning, however, since there are no significant differences in self-confidence ratings for the low status applicant when the constant and other eye contact conditions are compared. It may be that the low social status identification itself affected self-confidence ratings so profoundly that even eye contact behavior suggestive of personal confidence was quickly discounted. It can also be argued that the two-way interaction stemmed from a tendency to think of self-confidence as an employment criterion mainly relevant to the selection of persons for white-collar jobs. If such a tendency was operat- ing in the minds of the subject-interviewers, it could have led them to ignore the eye contact behavior of the low status applicant when rating his suitability for a job requiring self-confidence. This would explain why eye contact affected self-confidence ratings in the high status condition only. Whatever the reasons for the two-way interaction observed in the present study, the interaction seems to be of sufficient theoretical as well as applied significance to warrant further research.

Apart from its tendency to interact with eye contact, the social status manipulation produced a strong direct effect on self-confidence ratings in the present study. The applicant was perceived as markedly more self- confident when he presented himself as high in social status than when he presented himself as low in social status. It was evident, therefore, that social status characteristics served as important cues on which to infer the applicant’s suitability for jobs demanding self-confidence.

The capacity of social status information to bias interviewer reactions to the applicant was further indicated by the significant effects of social status on job-specific ratings. The high status applicant was viewed as more likely to be effective in the white-collar jobs, and as less likely to be effective in the blue-collar jobs. In addition, the subject-interviewers believed that the high status applicant would be significantly less satisfied in the blue-collar jobs than the low status applicant. The failure of the job ratings to be significantly affected by the eye contact manipulation may have been due to the fact that subjects were not shown the job descriptions until the interview was complete. Not expecting that they would be asked to evaluate the applicant in such concrete terms, subjects may have relied more heavily on their knowledge of the applicant’s educational and occupational background characteristics to make these judgments.


Consideration of the social dynamics of employment interview situations raises a number of issues about which little is known. We hope that the results of the present study are provocative enough to stimulate additional research in field as well as laboratory settings, and that the accumulation of research findings in this area will ultimately prove useful in improving the art of employment interviewing.

REFERENCES Efran, J. S. Looking for approval: Effects on visual behavior of approbation from persons

differing in importance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,10,21-25. Ellsworth, P. C., & Carlsmith, J. M. Eye contact and gaze aversion in an aggressive

encounter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 28, 280-292. Exline, R. V., & Winters, L. C. Affective relations and mutual glances in dyads. In S.

Tomkins & C. Izard (Eds.), Affect, cognition and personality. New York: Springer, 1965. Pp. 319-50.

Exline, R. V., Thibaut, J., Hickey, C. B., & Gumpert, P. Visual interaction in relation to machiavellianism and an unethical act. In R. Christie & F. L. Geis (Eds.). Studies in machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Pp. 53-75.

Exline, R. V. Visual Interaction: The glances of power and preference. In J. K. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1971. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1971.

Gatton, M., & Tyler, J. Nonverbal interview behavior and dependency. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 28, 303-304.

Henley, N. M. Body politics: Power, sex and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1965.

Kelly, H. H. Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1967, 15, 192-241.

Kleinke, C. L., Meeker, F. B., & LaFong, C. Effects of gaze, touch, and use of name on evaluation of ‘engaged’ couples. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1973, 7, 368-73.

Stass, J. W., & Willis, F. N. Eye contact, pupil dilation and personal preference. Psy- chonomic Science, 1967, VII, 375-376.

RECEIVED: March 18, 1978.

Effects of eye contact and social status on the perception of a job applicant in an employment...

Documents

Transcript of Effects of eye contact and social status on the perception of a job applicant in an employment...