Employer Perceptions in Hiring: The Role of Weight and Justification Groups
Michaela Milton
Hofstra University

Abstract
This study attempts to address the issue of weight discrimination and biases in hiring practice. Although the study seeks to reaffirm the existence of weight discrimination, it also seeks to assess the degree to which weight is associated with health, and consequently work performance, and productivity. Weight and justification groups were manipulated as a result, to measure participant responses to applicants’ job qualifications, hiring, and salary recommendations. This study hypothesized that participants will favor applicants who are thin and belonging to a low justification group across all three dependent variables. Varied participant responses, and insignificant results suggest that relationship between weight and hiring practices is absent in this study. Health also remains unidentified as a motivator for hiring decisions.

Employer Perceptions in Hiring: The Role of Weight and Justification Groups
Over the years, the developed world has seen an increase in obesity, which has been identified as an epidemic in recent tabloids. Although the scrutiny of overweight or obese individuals have often been propagated by the media, especially to promote standards of beauty, an individual’s weight is primarily assessed in terms of health implications. With the prevalence of celebrity diets, and increased attention to weight loss stories and sale of supplements, both weight consciousness and stereotypes have become more profound in society today. As the professional world is merely a vehicle for the expression of social norms and values, job applicants are also subjected to these stereotypes on weight. Studies have indicated that “overweight applicants experience more negative stereotypes than do average-weight applicants and are more likely to be discriminated against in hiring decisions” (Grant & Mizzi, 2014). With that being the case, present and future research is prompted to question the extent to which weight affects employer perceptions and attitudes in hiring, and the motivations for these perceptions. According to Agerstrom and Rooth, employers unconsciously “integrate [d] the job applicant’s weight when forming their assessment” (2011). This brings into question the reasons as to why, and to what extent that weight plays a role in hiring decisions. Swami and colleagues state a list of perceived characteristics, such as “less conscientious” or “lazy” with the stigma that overweight employees are subject to. However, the researchers of this study also highlight that they were perceived to be “less competent”(2008). Although it is not surprising that employers perceive individuals in terms of their personality traits (i.e. “lazy”) at first glance (this is characteristic of most social stereotypes), the fact that weight also influences perceptions on competency, is a matter of intrigue and interest. Klarenbach and colleagues further elaborate on this concept through their research on obesity and workforce participation. The research finds that with an increase in BMI, and health problems as a consequence, there is an increase in absenteeism (2006). With that being the case, the occupational performance and productivity of the employee reduces. As health problems are perceived to mount for the obese or unhealthy individual, employers are less likely to hire applicants who do not possess healthy lifestyles, and do not promise worker productivity and performance. The issue of weight discrimination in hiring practices and the increase in obesity over the years has even revealed “a casual relationship between body weight and labor market outcomes”, as a result of “physical impairments and chronic illnesses associated with obesity” (Renna & Thakur, 2010).
The present study assesses participant response to applicant weight and justification groups, especially in regard to their perceptions on the applicants’ job qualifications, their likelihood to be hired, and the highest starting salary that they would offer the individual. Applicant weight is revealed through manipulations of photographs (applicant is portrayed to be thin or overweight), while justification groups are classified as either high or low. We predict that applicants whose weight and justification groups reveal healthy lifestyle practices, are associated with better perceptions on their job qualifications, an increased likelihood to be hired, and a higher starting salary than their ‘unhealthy’ counterparts. Justification groups may serve to reinforce the concept of health, as it reveals participants’ lifestyle interests. As such, we predict that participants are likely to demonstrate their weight and justification preferences in this order: thin/low justification, overweight/low justification, thin/high justification, overweight/high justification.
Method
Participants
Thirty-nine individuals participated in this study. Most of the participants were undergraduate psychology students. Information on the rest of the participants remains unknown, as the results of the study were obtained through a survey. During the course of this study, all participants were treated in accordance to APA ethical guidelines. Design
For this study a 2 x 2 factorial design was used to assess participants’ response to weight and justification. The experiment was also carried out between-subjects; participants viewed only one of the four profiles. There were two independent variables included in the study. Each variable consists of two levels. For weight, the applicant was portrayed to be either overweight or thin. For the justification variable, the applicant belonged to either a low or high justification group. Weight and justification functioned as manipulated variables for the purpose of this study. The dependent variables in the study are demonstrated by the participants’ response to questions regarding applicant’s job qualifications, hiring recommendations, and recommended starting salary. These variables are not manipulated, but measured instead, to determine the effects of weight and justification groups across situations such as the ones measured above.
Materials
The participants were randomly assigned to one of four vignettes, and asked to answer questions regarding the dependent variables (job qualifications, hiring recommendations, and recommended starting salary).
Vignettes. Each participant views a LinkedIn profile that depicts an overweight individual in a high justification group, overweight individual in a low justification group, thin individual in a high justification group, or thin individual in a low justification group. These levels or conditions represent each cell in the 2 x 2 design. Only photographs and justification groups were manipulated to examine the participants’ response; other elements on the profile (skills, qualifications, education, etc.) remained the same.
Photographs. Participant perceptions regarding weight bias in employment were examined by including a photograph of the applicant. The two photographs either reflected an overweight or thin individual in a LinkedIn format.
Justification Groups. Participant perceptions regarding weight bias in employment were examined by manipulating the justification group that the applicant displayed on the LinkedIn profile. Applicants who were in the high justification group displayed interest groups such as ‘Chocolate Lovers Unite’ and ‘Foodies!!’. Applicants in the low justification group, on the other hand, displayed interest groups such as ‘Burn Fat Build Muscle’ and ‘Healthy Diet Recipes’. Job Description. The job description for a Field Marketing Director was provided to participants. The description allows for participants to view the applicant’s LinkedIn profile and answer the following questions in the survey.
Variables
Weight and Justification were assessed as independent variables in this study. In order to examine the responses to weight, photographs were manipulated to reflect overweight or thin individuals. To examine the responses to justification groups, applicants were either placed in high or low conditions. Dependent variables were assessed in terms of the participants’ response to applicant’s job qualifications, hiring recommendations, and recommended starting salary.
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned through an online survey creation tool to one of the four conditions (overweight individual in a high justification group, overweight individual in a low justification group, thin individual in a high justification group, or thin individual in a low justification group). Each participant was instructed to play the role of a hiring manager for a fictional organization where they had to review the job description for a Field Marketing Director. After doing so, they were revealed one of the four LinkedIn profiles that displayed an overweight or thin applicant, belonging to either a high or low justification group. They were then instructed to complete the survey with questions pertaining to the applicant’s job qualifications, hiring and salary recommendations. These questions in particular were phrased to reveal their perceptions on how qualified they think the applicant is, the likelihood by which the participant would hire the applicant, and the starting salary that the participant thought the applicant deserved.
Measurement
To assess applicant’s job qualifications and hiring recommendations, participants were asked to determine if the applicant was qualified or would be inclined to hire the applicant through questions such as “How likely are you to hire this applicant”, “Do you think this applicant is qualified”. The participant then responds by choosing an option from the Likert scale; answers range from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. To determine the recommended starting salary, participants were asked to pick a number between 65,000 and 200,000.
Analysis
A one way Analysis of Variance test was used for each of the dependent variables in this study. In order to do so, we utilized Microsoft Excel and StatPlus.
Results
A One- Way Analysis of Variance was calculated for each of three dependent variables (participants’ response to the applicants’ job qualifications, hiring recommendations, and salary recommendations). In running the ANOVA test to assess the participants’ perception of job qualifications, we found that there was an overall main effect for both weight and justification. The mean and standard deviations reflect the sample’s preference towards applicants’ who classify under the low justification group (Table 1). However, the effects proved to be insignificant F(3,45) = 0.93, p =. 43; perceptions of the applicants’ job qualifications cannot be inferred from the applicants’ weight and justification group.
The calculation for hiring recommendations also demonstrates an overall main effect for both weight and justification. Similarly, the mean and standard deviation in particular, reflect this sample’s preference towards applicants’ with low justification in both weight groups (overweight and thin) (Table 1). Despite these observations, the effects of weight and justification are not significant as F(3,45) = 2.56, p =. 06; the likelihood of hiring did not depend on the applicants’ weight and justification group in this study.
Salary recommendations for applicants’ belonging to overweight/ thin, and low/high justification groups also reflect similar patterns as the dependent variables mentioned above. Table 3 reflects that there is an overall main effect for both weight and justification, yet the results are not significant enough for generalization to the population; F(3,45) = 1.45, p =. 24. With that being the case, it cannot be inferred that salary recommendations depend on applicants’ weight and justification group.
Discussion
Due to the perception of weight being an indicator of health and consequently work performance and productivity (the healthier applicants are, the more likely they are to perform better and work productively), the hypothesis of this study reflects the belief that the combination of weight and justification groups that represents healthy practices (Ex. Thinner appearance, low justification group) is linked to better perceptions of job qualifications, hiring and salary recommendations. As a result, participants’ were predicted to demonstrate preference towards weight and justification pairings in the following order: thin/low justification, overweight/low justification, thin/high justification, overweight/high justification.
As there is a lack of significant results, the hypothesis is not supported. For all three conditions or dependent variables, the ANOVA test yielded results above the intended alpha level of 5%. Hence, the statistical validity of this study is insignificant. In assessing the means for each of the dependent variables, it can also be inferred that the hypothesized order of preference for all three situations is not supported as well. Applicants classified as thin, belonging to a low justification group were not always the popular choice, especially in hiring and salary recommendations. Similarly, overweight applicants belonging to high justification groups were not always the least favorable pick. In fact, this group of applicants scored higher on salary recommendations than thin/low justification applicants. However, these results can be attributed to a number of limitations in this study.
It has to be taken into consideration that this study is based on a survey, and is considered a sample of convenience. For the perceptions on job qualifications and hiring recommendations, the mean of each ANOVA test suggests that participants are more favorable towards applicants who are overweight with low justifications, than thin with high justifications (Table 1). Perceptions on salary recommendations, on the other hand, suggest that participants’ would offer a higher starting salary for thin individuals belonging to a high justification group. At first glance, this observation prompts us to question the extent to which weight and justification influence employer perceptions of job qualifications, hiring, and salary recommendations. However, this occurrence can be attributed to the fact that only 10 participants (in comparison to 12 or more participants) viewed the profile of a thin applicant belonging to a high justification group. Each of the four profiles (overweight/high justification, overweight/low justification, thin/high justification, thin/low justification) had a different number of participants comprising of a sample. As reflected in Table 1, the sample size for each pairing varies from the other, exhibiting inconsistency and can be attributed to the unexpected results. In addition, the participants of this survey were primarily undergraduate psychology majors. Hence, the external validity of the study is compromised; the sample was not obtained through means of random sampling. As a result, the findings of this study cannot be generalized to the intended population.
The hypothesis was formulated in accordance to the findings of previous literature; weight is recognized as an indicator of health, rather than attractiveness. Health is consequently associated with better work performance and productivity. As such, thinner individuals with healthier practices (low justification groups) were predicted to be favored by participants than their high justification, or overweight counterparts. Perceptions in job qualifications, in particular, favored applicants with a thin/low justification profile. However, the study does not allocate attractiveness as a control variable to determine the effects of employer perceptions of applicant health. The hypothesized results for job qualifications may not necessarily indicate participants’ perceptions on applicant health but can be associated to applicant attractiveness instead.
Applicant gender is also another factor that was not controlled in this study. The manipulated profile picture in this study was of a female applicant. Perhaps the discrepancy in the hypothesis and results, especially with hiring and salary recommendations can be attributed to gender biases. According to a study by Polinko & Popovich, “the overweight male was hired slightly more than the overweight female” (2001). Despite the fact that the results eventually proved to be insignificant for the sample, it highlights the possibility that overall employability may be linked to interactions between gender and weight. The absence of control variables questions the internal validity of this study; perceptions of gender and attractiveness may be the reasons as to why some participants preferred one group to the other, across various dependent variables (job qualification, hiring, and salary recommendations). The results do not reflect health perceptions to be the sole motivation for participant responses to applicant profiles in this study.
The study’s inability to attribute participant responses across the dependent variables also brings into question the construct and content validity of the study. The Likert scale adequately measured responses to carefully phrased questions, in regard to job qualifications, hiring, and salary recommendations. This suggests that the dependent variables measured were well within the construct of the study. Similarly, the independent variables maintained construct validity by providing pictures of an overweight and thin applicant to measure the role of weight in this study. Justification was measured by displaying groups that were either classified as high (food interest groups), low (health interest groups). Although the study measures what is commonly perceived as overweight and thin, and high and low justification, there is no provision of operational definitions for these independent variables. With that being the case, this study is also limited by its poor content validity. The unexpected outcome and presence of confounding variables in this study prompts for further research to better understand and predict employment attitudes. Future studies can be directed towards understanding the interaction of weight, justification groups and gender in relation to the dependent variables of this study. One of the severe limitations of this study is the fact that perceptions of attractiveness and gender were not accounted for. While this limitation confounds employer motivations (health v. attractiveness; male v. female) in hiring decisions, it also bring into question if the interaction between weight, justification groups, and gender will be significant. As gender is recognized as a participant variable, we predict that it will serve as a moderator for weight in determining how employers perceive an applicant’s job qualification, their likelihood to hire the individual, and the amount they are willing to offer the applicant as starting salary.

References
Agerström, J., & Rooth, D. (2011). The role of automatic obesity stereotypes in real hiring discrimination. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 790-805. doi:10.1037/a0021594
Grant, S., & Mizzi, T. (2014). Body weight bias in hiring decisions: Identifying explanatory mechanisms. Social Behavior And Personality, 42(3), 353-370. doi:10.2224/sbp.2014.42.3.353 Klarenbach, S., Padwal, R., Chuck, A., & Jacobs, P. (2006). Population-Based Analysis of Obesity and Workforce Participation. Obesity, 14(5), 920-927. doi:10.1038/oby.2006.10
Polinko, N. K., & Popovich, P. M. (2001). Evil thoughts but angelic actions:
Responses to overweight job applicants. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 31(5), 905-924. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02655.x
Renna, F., & Thakur, N. (2010). Direct and indirect effects of obesity on U.S. labor market outcomes of older working age adults. Social Science & Medicine, 71(2), 405-413. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.038 Swami, V., Chan, F., Wong, V., Furnham, A., & Tovée, M. J. (2008). Weight-based discrimination in occupational hiring and helping behavior. Journal Of Applied Social
Psychology, 38(4), 968-981. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00334.x

Table 1

Mean and Standard Deviations for Job Qualification, Hiring Recommendation, and Salary Recommendation by applicant Weight and Justification Group

Weight and Justification Groups Job Qualification (SD)
N Hiring Recommendation (SD)
N Salary Recommendation (SD)
N
Overweight/ High Justification 3.92 (0.29)
12 3.33 (0.65)
12 83,552.67 (17,640.97)
12
Overweight/ Low Justification 4.08 (0.49)
13 4.08 (0.64)
13 86,772.38 (23,302.35)
13
Thin/ High Justification 3.9 (1.97)
10 3.9 (0.57)
10 97,149.6 (21,566.44)
10
Thin/ Low Justification 4.14 (2.04)
14 3.57 (0.94)
14 82,025.71(11,152.07)
14
Note: Job Qualification and Hiring Recommendation were measured using a Likert Scale from 1 (unqualified/ very unlikely to hire) to 10 (extremely qualified/ very likely to hire). For Salary Recommendations, participants were required to choose a starting salary ranging from 65,000 to 200,00 that would be offered to the applicant.