1. Introduction

ny skicultiesave aed inge nuports

ple with disabilities are often attributed to veterans, and serve asmajor obstacles to their employment (Stone & Colella, 1996). Althoughhip), reports suggestedieri &Drehmer, 1984).

Human Resource Management Review 25 (2015) 6879

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /humresAnother reason for veterans' employment problems is that they may lack civilian work experience, and employers do not alwaysunderstand howmilitary experience transfers to private sector jobs (www.whitehouse.gov, 2011). For example, the military trainedapproximately 10,000 health care workers and 10,000 truck drivers after 2011, but these skills are not always recognized by private-in some cases there are positive characteristics attributed to veterans (e.g., discipline, adept at teamwork, leadersthat veterans are often stereotyped aswithdrawn, bitter,mentally ill, depressed, or drug and alcohol abusers (Bordbring to the workforce and these individuals may have fewer opportunities to enjoy a satisfying work life than nonveterans.Among themany potential reasons for the employment problems of veterans, some analysts argued that veterans are more likely to

have a disability or health condition than nonveterans (Prudential, 2012). Estimates indicate that 66 percent of veterans have health con-ditions or disabilities stemming from their military service, and a corresponding unemployment rate of 20 percent (Prudential, 2012).Furthermore, even those without a disability are often perceived as disabled. As a result, the stereotypes and biases associatedwith peo-(Prudential, 2012). Furthermore, a lar(www.whitehouse.gov, 2011). These re Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: Christopher.stone@utsa.edu (C. St

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.06.0031053-4822/ 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.mber of veterans (i.e., 69 percent) report that nding a job is their greatest challengeindicate that organizations are not always using themany talents and skills that veteranstopic. Our modied model indicated that the (a) attributes of the veteran, (b) the characteristicsof the observer, (c) the nature of the job, (d) the perceived transferability of skills from militaryto civilian jobs, and (e) the differences between military and civilian organizational culturesinuence hiring decisions about veterans. We believe that an increased understanding of theseselection decisions will help organizations utilize the many talents and skills that veterans bringto the workforce, and enable veterans to enjoy a more fullling work life and career.

2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

lls that shouldmake them attractive to employers (e.g., discipline, leadership, teamworkgaining and maintaining employment. For example, according to the Bureau of Labor10 percent unemployment rate compared to 6.4 percent for non-veterans. In addition,the military after 9/11 revealed that they have difculties adjusting to civilian lifeAlthoughmilitary veterans havemaskills), they often have numerous difStatistics (2013), Gulf War II veterans h64 percent of U.S. veterans who servFactors affecting hiring decisions about veterans

Christopher Stone a,, Dianna L. Stone b

a University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249, United Statesb University at Albany, State University of New York, c/o 866 Fawnway, San Antonio, TX 78260, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Military veterans have numerous problems gaining and maintaining jobs in the U.S., and theirunemployment rates are consistently higher than nonveterans (Bureau of Labor Statistics2013). Despite these problems, little theory and research in Human Resource Management(HRM)has focused on understanding the factors affecting hiring decisions aboutmilitary veterans(e.g., Bordieri & Drehmer, 1984). Thus, the present paper modied an existing model of thetreatment of persons with disabilities (Stone & Colella, 1996) to explain the issues that inuenceselection decisions about veterans. We also offered hypotheses to guide future research on the

Keywords:VeteranStigmaSelectionHiring decisionsone), Diannastone@satx.rr.com (D.L. Stone).

69C. Stone, D.L. Stone / Human Resource Management Review 25 (2015) 6879sector employers or licensing agencies (Prudential, 2012). In particular, veterans trained in health care or truck driving often gothrough new training and licensing tests before applying for private sector jobs. Recently, 34 states adopted laws that waive behindthe wheel tests for truck drivers so that veterans with relevant military experience can gain access to these jobs (www.whitehouse.gov). However, despite the shortage of health care workers in the United States (Department of Labor, 2012), militarymedical experience does not translate into private-sector health care jobs, and veteransmust get a diploma from an approved nursingprogram or pass licensing exams before applying for health care jobs.

In an effort to increase employment opportunities for veterans, Congress recently passed legislation that offers employers taxcredits for hiring veterans (www.whitehouse.gov). In addition, a larger number of employers have made a compelling businesscase for hiring veterans because they often have high levels of performance. For instance, 29 percent of private sector employers de-signed specialized programs to recruit veterans (e.g., Amazon, General Electric, Wal-Mart, Charles Schwab, USAA, Dupont, JB Hunt,etc.) (Harrell & Berglass, 2012). Research showed consistently that employees' military service was positively related to performanceon civilian jobs (Harrell & Berglass, 2012), and other studies found that veteranswith disabilities performaswell as nonveteranswith-out a disability (Gurchiek, 2011). Research also revealed that compared to nonveterans, veterans aremore likely to: (a) have advancedtechnology training, (b) be adept at skills transfer across contexts and tasks, (c) display good teamwork skills, (d) exhibit cultural sen-sitivity and acceptance of diversity, and (e) possess high levels of resiliency, integrity, and loyalty (Syracuse University, Institute forVeterans andMilitary Families, 2012). These results suggested that many of the stereotypes attributed to veteransmay be unfounded(e.g., rigidity, bitter, lack of adaptability to new contexts), and that hiring veterans may be quite benecial for organizations.

Despite the employment problems experienced by veterans and employers' interest in recruiting them, little theory and researchin Human Resource Management examined the factors that affect hiring decisions regarding veterans. Some notable exceptions in-clude research in the journal of Military Psychology regarding stigmas associated with veterans (e.g., McFarling, D'Angelo, Drain,Gibbs, & Olmstead, 2011; Sudom, Zamorski, & Garber, 2012). However, much of this research focused on: (a) barriers to rehabilitationand mental health or drug abuse treatment for veterans (McFarling et al., 2011; Sudom et al., 2012), (b) affective responses to treat-ment for mental health and substance abuse (Gibbs, Olmstead, Brown, & Clinton-Sherrod, 2011; Kim, Britt, Klocko, Riviere, & Adler,2011; Olmstead et al., 2011), and (c) self-stigmas (Dickstein, Vogt, Handa, & Litz, 2010).

To our knowledge, only one study addressed the factors affecting hiring decisions about veterans (e.g., Bordieri & Drehmer, 1984).As a result, the primary purposes of this paper are as follows: (a) expand an existing model (Stone & Colella, 1996) to explain hiringdecisions regarding veterans, (b) present hypotheses based on themodel to guide future research on the topic, and (c) offer strategiesfor organizations and individuals to overcome the challenges faced by veterans in the employment process.We believe that an under-standing of the factors affecting selection decisions concerning veterans is important for organizations trying to hire these individuals,and for the veterans who want to enhance their job and career opportunities.

2. Modication of the Stone and Colella (1996) model

We expanded a model of the factors affecting the treatment of persons with disabilities by Stone and Colella (1996) (hereinafterreferred to as the disability model) to explain the variables thought to inuence employer decisions to hire veterans. The originalmodel is presented in Fig. 1, and a depiction of our modied model is noted in Fig. 2.

We believe that the Stone and Colella (1996)model provides a compelling explanation of the factors that are likely to affect hiringdecisions about veterans because it: (a) focuses on stereotypes associated with individuals with disabilities and many veterans areperceived as disabled or actually have a disability, (b) identies a number of key factors that are likely to inuence hiring decisions(e.g., attributes of the person, attributes of the observer, and nature of the job), and (c) provides strategies that can be used byorganizations and veterans to ameliorate the challenges faced by veterans in the hiring process. Although the disabilitymodel focusedspecically on peoplewith disabilities, we believe that the factors in themodel apply to hiring decisions aboutmembers of all stigma-tized groups (e.g., veterans). Furthermore,we added twounique factors to the existingmodel because the situations facing veterans inthe hiring process may be somewhat different than those facing people with disabilities. As a result, the two new factors included the(a) degree to which military skills are perceived to transfer to civilian jobs, and (b) differences between military and civilian rolerequirements and organizational cultures. Therefore, we describe the existing model and our modications and extensions to themodel in the sections that follow, and offer specic hypotheses to guide research.

It merits noting that we present hypotheses in this paper rather than propositions because our predictions are based in a specictheoretical framework. A number of research methodologists argued that hypotheses are relational predictions that are based ontheory, and can be tested empirically (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Stone-Romero, 2011). However, propositions are broad statementsthat are typically used with exploratory research (e.g., not based in theory), and cannot be directly tested (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000).Thus, we presented hypotheses because we wanted to include specic predictions based on a theoretical model, and believe thatthey will advance our knowledge of the factors affecting hiring decisions about veterans.

2.1. Categorization and stereotyping of veterans

In their original model, Stone and Colella (1996) used a social cognitive framework to understand the cognitive factors that affectthe treatment of people with disabilities in organizations, and we believe these same processes apply to hiring decisions regardingveterans. As a result, wemodied the originalmodel to focus on applicantswho are veterans. For example, the disabilitymodel arguedthat when individuals apply for jobs, raters: (a) assign them to a category (e.g., post 9/11 war veteran), (b) use the categorization togenerate stereotypes about the individual (e.g., veteran ismentally ill, rigid, an alcohol and drug user), and (c) apply the stereotypes to

70 C. Stone, D.L. Stone / Human Resource Management Review 25 (2015) 6879generate job-related expectancies or anticipatory beliefs about the person's behavior (e.g., the veteran is mentally ill, and he or she

Fig. 1. Original model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations (Stone & Colella, 1996).will not be able to perform the job in a satisfactory manner). As a result, if there are negative expectancies about the veteran's jobperformance then the observer will rate the veteran as less suitable for jobs than others, and they will not hire them for jobs.

The explanation above illustrates clearly that hiring decisions about veterans are inuenced by the categorizations, stereotypes,stigmas, and job expectancies associated with one's veteran status. Stereotypes are often dened as over-generalized beliefs aboutmembers of a category that are typically negative (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1981; Brewer & Kramer, 1985). For instance, a number ofanalysts argued that veterans are stereotyped as mentally ill (e.g., depressed, having post traumatic stress disorder [PTSD], bitter,withdrawn, rigid, angry, and lacking skills needed for private sector jobs etc.) (Beckerman & Fontana, 1989; Bordieri & Drehmer,1984; Mangum & Ball, 1987).

Similar to a stereotype, stigmas are dened as deeply discrediting negative characteristics (e.g., mentally ill) (Jones et al., 1984)that reveal that one's actual identity is discrepant from one's virtual identity or the identity which is expected in society (Goffman,1963). As a result, stereotypes can be stigmaswhen they are extremely discrediting for the person. For example, some reports indicatethat post 9/11 veterans are perceived as ticking time bombs ready to explode with anger at any moment (Harrell & Berglass, 2012).

Fig. 2. Factors affecting hiring decisions about veterans.

71C. Stone, D.L. Stone / Human Resource Management Review 25 (2015) 6879This inference may be a stigma because it severely damages the individual's identity and reputation. Stigmas are actual or inferredattributes that serve as the basis for the person being perceived as atypical, aberrant or deviant and thus being discredited by thosewho are not stigmatized (Stone, Stone, & Dipboye, 1992: 388).

Many of the stereotypes about veterans are very inconsistent. For example, on the one hand they are often viewed as rigid, bitter,angry, withdrawn, and mentally ill (Bordieri & Drehmer, 1984). However, they are also perceived to be disciplined, with good lead-ership and teamwork skills (Dickstein et al., 2010). Although research on inconsistent stereotypes does not clearly indicate howobservers process positive and negative information, stigmatizing information (e.g., veteran is mentally ill) is likely to have a greaterimpact on hiring decisions than stereotypically positive information (e.g., person is disciplined, a good leader) because selectionprocesses are often a search for negative information (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005).

Furthermore, the existing research on inconsistent stereotypes revealed that observers often explain away information that is notconsistent with the prevailing stereotype or resort to subtypes to defend negative stereotypes (Wigboldus, Dijksterhuis, & vanKnippenberg, 2003). For example, if the veteran is perceived as rigid, but also a good leader, then a rater might say that this personis the exception rather than the typical veteran. Similarly, some research found that observers' inferences are determined by their im-plicit assumptions about whether human attributes are xed or malleable (Plaks, Stroessner, Dweck, & Sherman, 2001). If observersperceive that traits arexed then they are likely to focus on stereotype consistent information (e.g., veteran is rigid,mentally ill). How-ever, if they believe that traits are malleable then they are likely to focus on inconsistent information (e.g., veteran is disciplined, hasteamwork skills) because it has the greatest informational value. Given that there are often inconsistent stereotypes about veterans,research is needed to determine how raters process positive and negative information about veterans' attributes.

The original disabilitymodel argued that several factors affect hiring decisions including: the attributes of the applicant, attributesof the observer, and the nature of the job. Each of these variables is included in our modied model, but we also added two otherfactors to the model that may be unique to veterans: the difference in military and civilian organizational cultures, and the degreeto which skills transfer from military to civilian jobs.

2.1.1. Attributes of the veteranThe attributes of the veteran are thought to play a crucial role in the stigmatization and hiring process. For example, the original

disability model maintained that a number of variables affect the degree to which an individual's social identity is discredited. Forexample, based on thework of Jones et al. (1984), Stone and Colella (1996) indicated that the nature of an actual or perceived disabil-ity, danger/peril, disruptiveness, aesthetic qualities, origin, and course inuences the extent to which individuals are stigmatized.Weincluded most of these factors in our modied model, and will consider them in the paragraphs below.

2.1.1.1. Presence/nature of a disability. Even though all veterans are not disabled, research revealed thatmany veterans are perceived orstereotyped as having a disability (e.g., depression or PTSD) (Beckerman & Fontana, 1989; Bordieri & Drehmer, 1984;Mangum& Ball,1987). In other cases, veterans may have experienced a loss of limbs or disgurement in a war, and these individuals often have adouble disadvantage in the hiring process. For instance, they may be stereotyped as veterans, and also perceived as a person with adisability. Alternatively, they may be stereotyped as having few private sector job skills, and also viewed as mentally disabled(Stone et al., 1992). Given these multiple stereotypes, research on interpersonal attraction suggests that they will be liked less, andthought to have less desirable characteristics than non-veterans (Byrne, London, & Reeves, 1968).

Results of research on multiple stereotypes revealed very mixed ndings (Hosoda, Stone, & StoneRomero, 2003), but studies onpersons with disabilities indicated that there is a hierarchy of disabilities. For instance, individuals who are stereotyped as mentallydisabled are viewed more negatively than those with sensory (e.g., hearing impairments), or physical disabilities (e.g., paraplegia)(e.g., Tringo, 1970). In particular, Richardson, Goodman,Hastorf, andDornbusch (1961) found that individuals reactedmore negative-ly to those who were former mental patients than to those who had physical disabilities (e.g., paraplegia) or sensory (e.g., hearingimpairment) disabilities. As a result, we argue that veterans may have difculty gaining access to jobs because many of them arestereotyped as having a mental disability.

Despite the arguments noted above, there has been very little empirical research on the stereotypes or stigmas associated withveterans. Most of the stereotypes associated with veterans have been promulgated by the media, and are based on anecdotal ratherthan empirical evidence. One notable exception is the work of Bordieri and Drehmer (1984) who found that Vietnam era veteranswere perceived as having higher levels of psychological problems than non-veterans. The same research also revealed thatVietnam veterans received lower hiring recommendations than non-veterans despite equal qualications. Other research byDickstein et al. (2010) indicated that veterans were more likely to be stereotyped as mentally ill, violent, and personally responsiblefor their own plight than non-veterans.

Given the lack of empirical research on stereotypes and stigmas associatedwith veterans, we believe that someof therst researchon veterans should focus on identifying the specic stereotypes and stigmas attributed to veterans. An understanding of these stereo-types can help organizations and individuals dispelmyths about veterans. As a result, we offer the following propositions to guide thatresearch:

Hypothesis 1. Applicants who are veterans will be more likely to be stereotyped as having: (a) mental illness, (b) depression, or(c) having post-traumatic stress disorder, than those who are not veterans.

Hypothesis 2. When applicants who are veterans are perceived as mentally ill, they will be (a) rated as less suitable for jobs and(b) less likely to be hired for jobs than those who are not perceived as mentally ill.

72 C. Stone, D.L. Stone / Human Resource Management Review 25 (2015) 6879they may perceive that the veteran is responsible for his or her own fate because they had no other job-related options but to jointhemilitary.We know of only one study on this issue, and its results revealed that veterans were rated more negatively than nonvet-erans because they were perceived as personally responsible for their fate (Dickstein et al., 2010). Given that there is relatively littleresearch on this issue, we present the following hypothesis to guide research:

Hypothesis 6. Veterans who joined the military because they are patriotic will be rated (a) higher in terms of job suitability and(b) more likely to be hired than those who joined because they (c) had no other job opportunities or (d) were ordered to join bythe courts.

2.1.1.5. Course. The disability modelmaintained that the course of the stigma, or the degree to which it is temporary or long term, alsoinuences ratings of the individual. We included this variable in our modied model, and predicted that when raters believe that aveteran has a long term physical or mental disability they should be less likely to rate the veteran as suitable for a job than whenthe person is viewed as having a short term disability. For example, if a rater perceives that a veteran has mild anxiety he or she isAlthough this argument seems plausible, we know of no research that specically examined the extent to which hiring decisionsabout veterans are inuenced by their aesthetic appeal. However, research on people with disabilities showed that applicants in awheelchair were offered fewer interviews than their able bodied counterparts (Johnson & Heal, 1976), and raters were more likelyto avoid those with an amputated leg than those without a disability (Kleck, 1968). In contrast, other research indicated thatapplicants with physical disabilities were not rated differently than those without a disability (Krefting & Brief, 1976).

However, it merits noting that the results of the research noted above may have been inuenced by social desirability or impres-sionmanagement artifacts. As a consequence, research is needed to assess the degree to which veterans who are viewed (a) as phys-ically unattractive or (b) have physical disgurements are rated as less suitable for jobs and less likely to be hired than those who areattractive or do not have disgurements. Thus, we offer the following hypothesis to foster that research:

Hypothesis 5. When applicants who are veterans have visible physical disgurements theywill: (a) be rated as less attractive, (b) berated as less suitable for jobs, and (c) be less likely to be hired than those without a visible physical disgurement.

2.1.1.4. Origin. The original disability model claimed that the origins of the stigma, or the extent to which individuals are perceived asresponsible for their plight affect ratings of individuals. As a result, our modied model noted that another factor that may inuencestereotypes, stigmas, and ratings of veterans, is the degree to which the rater views the veteran as responsible for his or her own fate.However, this issue may be more complex for veterans than those with other types of stigmas. For instance, veterans who joined themilitary because theywere patriotic orwanted to protect their country should be ratedmore favorably than thosewho joined themil-itary for other reasons (e.g., to escape a prison sentence or they had few job opportunities). One reason for this is that those who arepatriotic should be viewed as having greater integrity than those who joined the military for other reasons. Furthermore, raters areless likely to viewpatriotic veterans as responsible for their own fate compared to thosewhohad to join themilitary for other reasons.

However, those veterans who joined the military because they had few job opportunities or were required to join by the courtsshould be viewed as more responsible for their own fate than others. For example, raters are likely to perceive that those who joinedthe military because of poor job-related skills should have developed skills in high school, college, or training programs. As a result,that they are a hiring risk because they might harm themselves or others. As a result, the degree to which veterans are perceived asdangerous or disruptive may have a negative impact on job-related expectancies and hiring decisions. To our knowledge, only onestudy has directly addressed this issue (Dickstein et al., 2010), and we present the following proposition to guide research:

Hypothesis 3. Applicants who are veterans will be perceived asmore (a) dangerous, or (b) potentially disruptive than non-veterans.

Hypothesis 4. When applicants who are veterans are perceived as dangerous they will be (a) rated as less suitable for jobs, and(b) less likely to be hired than those who are not perceived as dangerous.

2.1.1.3. Aesthetic qualities. A third factor that may affect ratings of veterans is their aesthetic appeal or attractiveness (e.g., Stone &Colella, 1996). Research showed consistently that applicants who are attractive are rated higher, and receive higher salary levelsthan those who are less attractive (Hosoda, Stone-Romero, & Coats, 2003). For example, a meta-analysis by Hosoda, Stone-Romeroet al. (2003) revealed that unattractive applicants were rated more negatively than attractive applicants regardless of the type ofjob, and a study by Commisso and Finkelstein (2012) found that raters were more willing to terminate unattractive than attractivefemales.

Someveterans have experienced the loss of limbs or other types of disgurement inwar zones. As a result, when veterans have lostlimbs or experienced physical disgurement, especially facial disgurement, they should be viewed as less aesthetically appealingthan those without disgurement. In support of this argument, Goffman (1963) argued that abominations of the body, especiallyfacial disgurements or amputations, elicit feelings of disgust or revulsion in others. Thus, our model predicts that when veteransare perceived as unattractive or disgured they will be less likely to be hired for jobs than when they are not viewed as unattractive.2.1.1.2. Danger/peril/disruptiveness. Another factor in the disability model that should affect hiring decisions about veterans is thedegree to which the person is perceived to have attributes that are dangerous, perilous or disruptive. For example, some research re-vealed that veterans are often stereotyped as violent or ticking timebombs thatmay display their anger on the job at any point in time(Dickstein et al., 2010). Given these potential stereotypes, some raters may view veterans as dangerous and disruptive, and perceive

73C. Stone, D.L. Stone / Human Resource Management Review 25 (2015) 6879likely to rate the person more positively than when the veteran has PTSD, typically a long term impairment. In support of this argu-ment, research on disabilities showed that when an applicant had a long term disability (e.g., cancer) the personwas ratedmore neg-atively than when he or she had a temporary disability (e.g., broken leg) (Stone & Colella, 1996). We know of no specic research onthis issue with veterans, and provide the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 7. When applicantswho are veterans have a long-termdisability theywill be (a) rated as less suitable for jobs and (b) lesslikely to be hired than those who are perceived to have a short term disability.

2.1.1.6. Other attributes of the veteran. Although the Stone and Colella (1996) model argued that applicants' previous performancelevel, gender, race, ethnicity, and social status may inuence hiring decisions, space limitations preclude a detailed discussion of allof these issues. However, some of them (e.g., previous performance or skill levels) are considered indirectly in the nature of the jobsection.

2.1.2. Attributes of the observerConsistent with the disability model, we believe that the attributes of the observer are key variables that affect hiring decisions

about veterans. Therefore, we included observers' attributes in our modied model. In particular, we argued that observers' values,personality, previous military experience, and previous contact with veterans should inuence stereotypes and ratings of veteransin the hiring process. Each of these attributes will be considered in the sections below.

2.1.2.1. Observers' values. Observers' values about military service, patriotism, and war are likely to inuence their reactions to vet-erans. For example, observers vary in terms of patriotism or how much they value military service. Those who are high in patrioticvalues should be more likely to value military or national service than those who are low in patriotism. For example, manyAmericans display or communicate their appreciation for the service of veteranswho served after 9/11. These observersmay also per-ceive that veterans' values are similar to their own, and these beliefs should have a positive inuence on their liking of veterans(Byrne, 1971).

Although many Americans express gratitude for those who served in the military after 9/11, people often ridiculed Vietnam eraveterans, and often held these individuals responsible for a very unpopular war (www.whitehouse.gov, 2011). In some cases theycalled Vietnam era veterans baby killers and vented their frustrations on those returning to the U.S. (Prudential, 2012). As a result,many stereotypes about veterans emerged during this era (e.g., veterans are mentally ill or abuse drugs and alcohol), and manyVietnam era veterans became alienated from our society. They also had numerous problems adjusting to civilian life and gaining ac-cess to jobs. As a result of these employment problems, the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA)was passedin 1974. This act requires federal government contractors and subcontractors to take afrmative action to employ, and advanceVietnam era veterans and prohibits discrimination against them. Therefore, many federal government job openings give preferenceto Vietnam era veterans over other applicants.

Even thoughmanyAmericans aremore likely to appreciate veterans today than after the Vietnam conict, there are still many ob-serverswhohave anti-war values and perceive that veterans' values are not congruentwith their own. As a result, observers' anti-warvalues may have a negative impact on ratings of veterans, and negatively affect hiring decisions about them.We know of no researchon this issue, so we offer the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 8. Observers who have (a) high levels of patriotic values or (b) view war as a necessity should be (c) more likely to rateveterans as suitable for jobs and (d)more likely to hire them than thosewhohave low levels of patriotic values or do not perceivewaras a necessity.

2.1.2.2. Observers' personality.Another attribute that should inuence hiring decisions about veterans is the observer's personality. Thedisabilitymodelmaintained that the observers' personality should affect how stigmatized persons are perceived and treated. Further-more, some research on disabilities revealed that observers' personality is more likely to predict reactions to those with disabilitiesthan demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age) (Colella & Stone, 2005). However, studies did nd that attitudes toward the dis-abledwere consistently related to observers' personality characteristics including empathy, self-concept, tolerance for ambiguity, anddogmatism (e.g., Cesare, Tannenbaum, & Dalessio, 1990; Noonan, Barry, & Davis, 1970; Whiteman & Lukoff, 1965). One of the mostwidely studied personality characteristics is empathy (Cesare et al., 1990), and we believe that it should be predictive of raters' eval-uations of veterans. Empathy has been dened as the ability to understand and share the feelings of another (Cesare et al., 1990).Surprisingly, research indicated that observers with high empathy levels may feel more discomfort and pity working with peoplewith disabilities than observers with lower empathy levels (Cesare et al., 1990). Other research noted that the ability to distance one-self emotionally from an individuals' disability may help them work more effectively with those with disabilities (Colella & Stone,2005). Thus, we predict that those with high levels of empathy may react more emotionally to veterans, and may not focus on theperson's job-related skills and abilities. As a result, they may rate the veteran as less suitable for jobs than those who are low interms of empathy.

Although some research exists on the relation between observers' empathy and reactions to individuals with disabilities (Cesareet al., 1990; Noonan et al., 1970), research is needed to assess the relation between observers' empathy, and reactions to veteranswithactual or perceived disabilities. Even though research on disabilities may be applicable to veterans, we believe that the relations maybe different because of the unique background of veterans. Thus, we present the following hypothesis to foster that research.

74 C. Stone, D.L. Stone / Human Resource Management Review 25 (2015) 6879that observers may not have information about the nature of military jobs or the knowledge, skills, and abilities associated withthem. Thus, theymay not knowaboutmilitarywork experience or skills transfers to civilian jobs. Furthermore, a survey of 12.1millionveterans indicated that veterans have difculty explaining how their military skills translate to civilian jobs (Prudential, 2012). Indecisions about veterans are the observers' previous service in themilitary, and their positive contact with veterans. First, we believethat observers who have served in the military will rate veterans more favorably than those who do not have military experiencebecause the former individuals are more likely to understand the experiences and feelings of veterans.

Second, the disability model argued that observers' previous positive contact with stigmatized persons will affect how they areperceived in the selection process. If observers have had positive interactions with family members, friends, or coworkers who arepersons with disabilities they should have individuating information about them. This individuating information should dispelmany of the stereotypes about the person, and observers should be less likely to use stereotypes to make job-related inferences.We believe that the same relation should hold for veterans. For instance, if observers have had contact with veterans they mayknow thatmany veterans are disciplined, hardworking, and experienced individuals who do not all suffer from psychological impair-ments. However, if observers have never had contact with veterans they should bemore likely to base their hiring decisions on groupstereotypes.

Indirect support for this argument is provided by research on previous contact with persons with disabilities (Stone & Colella,1996). Some research found that intergroup contact decreases intergroup prejudice (Pettigrew& Tropp, 2006, p. 766), and personalcontactmay enhance attitudes toward peoplewith disabilities especiallywhen the contact reveals non-stereotypical behavior (Frith &Mitchell, 1981). However, other studies showed thatwhen personal contactwas not intimate or frequent observerswere still likely touse negative stereotypes to make inferences about the person's behavior (Anderson & Antonak, 1992; Corrigan, Edwards, Green,Diwan, & Penn, 2001; Gaier, Linkowski, & Jaques, 1968; Taylor, 1981; Weinberg, 1976; Yuker, 1988). Thus, we argue that personalcontact with veterans will enhance positive attitudes toward veterans, or dispel negative stereotypes about them, when the contactis positive. We know of no research on this issue so we offer the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 10. When observers have served in the military they will be more likely to (a) understand the experiences of veterans,(b) rate them as more suitable for jobs, and (c) hire them than those who have not served in the military.

Hypothesis 11. When observers have positive previous contact with veterans they will (a) rate the veteran asmore suitable for jobs,and (b) be more likely to hire them than when they have not had previous positive contact with them.

2.1.3. Nature of the jobThe disability model indicated that the nature of the job should have a key impact on job suitability ratings and hiring decisions

about stigmatized persons. In the selection process, decision makers assess the degree to which applicants' prior experience, skills,and abilities are consistent with the requirements of the job. However, when veterans apply for jobs raters may not have clearinformation on the nature of military jobs or the skills and abilities associated with them. As a result, this ambiguity is likely tohave a negative impact on job suitability ratings and hiring decisions.

For example, research showed that when observers are uncertain about an applicant's previous experience or skills, they often usegap lling or stereotypes to make judgments about applicants' job suitability (Heilman, 1983). For example, raters assess the tbetween the stereotypes about the person and the prototypical requirements of jobs (Heilman, 1983). In particular, when a veteranapplies for the job of customer service representative, and the job requires that the incumbent have good interpersonal skills, be emo-tionally well adjusted, and extraverted, raters compare the perceived attributes of the person (e.g., rigid, depressed, withdrawn)withthe prototypes associated with the job to make inferences about the person's success on the job.

2.1.3.1. Stereotype-job t. This framework is known as the stereotype-jobtmodel (Heilman, 1983), and research on the topic revealedthat when stereotypes are inconsistent with job requirements individuals are less likely to be hired for the jobs. Research by Heilman(1983) found that women were less likely to be hired for managerial jobs because gender stereotypes (e.g., women are weak, unas-sertive, indecisive, emotional)were inconsistentwith the perceived prototypes ofmanagerial jobs (e.g., managers should be assertive,decisive, unemotional). In view of these ndings, we believe that the stereotypes attributed to veterans (e.g., bitter, withdrawn,mentally ill) should have a negative impact on their perceived t for many jobs. To date, little research has assessed this argument,but a study by Bordieri andDrehmer (1984) found that raters viewedVietnamveterans asmore likely to have psychological problems,and viewed them as less suitable for jobs than nonveterans. Given the lack of research on the degree to which the stereotype-job tmodel applies to veterans, we set forth the following hypothesis to foster additional research.

Hypothesis 12. There will be a two-way interaction between veterans' stereotypes and perceived job requirements such thatveterans will be rated as less suitable for jobs when the stereotypes attributed to them are inconsistent with job requirements thanwhen they are consistent with job requirements.

2.1.3.2. Ambiguity about veterans' skills. As noted above, one of the greatest challenges facing veterans in the employment process isHypothesis 9. Observers who have high levels of empathywill (a) report greater levels of discomfort workingwith veterans, (b) ratethem as less suitable for jobs, and (c) be less likely to hire them for jobs than those who have low levels of empathy.

2.1.2.3. Observers' military experience or previous contact with veterans. Two other observer characteristics that should affect hiring

75C. Stone, D.L. Stone / Human Resource Management Review 25 (2015) 6879organizational cultures, theywill (a) rate veterans as less suitable for jobs, and (b) be less likely to hire them thanwhen they perceivethat the military organizational culture is similar to the culture in a civilian organization.

In summary, our modiedmodel indicated that hiring decisions about veterans are inuenced by the (a) attributes of the veteran,(b) attributes of the observer, (c) nature of the job, (d) degree to which raters perceive that military skills transfer to civilian jobs, and(e) perceived difference between role requirements in military and civilian organizational cultures. Throughout this paper, we iden-tied several obstacles to the employment of veterans, but in the section below we consider some strategies that organizations andveterans can use to overcome these barriers.

3. Strategies to enhance veterans' employment opportunities

In the previous sections we argued that a number of key factors interact to affect hiring decisions about veterans. Although thechallenges facing many veterans seem formidable, we believe that there are a number of strategies that veterans and organizationscan use to increase the employment opportunities for these individuals. In the sections that follow we consider some of thesestrategies.

3.1. Strategies that can be used by organizations

Webelieve that ourmodiedmodel has important implications for identifying strategies that private-sector organizations can useto increase the inclusion of veterans. Therefore, in the paragraphs below we consider some of these strategies.some cases the nature of the military job is clear (e.g., truck driver, cook), and the transferability of skills is quite evident to decisionmakers. For instance, a decisionmaker can oftenmake accurate inferences about the job of truck driver, plumber, computer program-mer, or motor vehicle mechanic. As a result, raters should be less likely to use stereotypes about veterans to make hiring decisionswhen the skill sets associated with the military job are clear than when they are ambiguous. In support of this argument, researchby Kleykamp (2009) revealed that employers rated black military veterans as more suitable for jobs than black nonveterans whentheir military skills clearly transferred to civilian jobs than when they did not. Furthermore, veterans with traditional military expe-rience in combat arms were not rated as more suitable than nonveterans regardless of their racial or ethnic background (Kleykamp,2009). These ndings suggested that veterans who have military occupational specialties (e.g., truck driver, motor vehicle mechanic)with a high degree of perceived transferability should be more likely to be hired than those who have military specialties that are notviewed as transferable. The ndings for racemay be due to the fact that blacks aremore likely to be assigned to low level military jobswith clearly transferable skills than members of other groups.

Given that the perceived transferability of skills is a factor that may be important to hiring decisions about veterans, we added thisvariable to our expandedmodel (see Fig. 2). We also believe that additional research is needed on the relation between the perceivedtransferability of veterans' military experience and skills to civilian jobs. Therefore, we offer the following hypothesis based on ourexpanded model.

Hypothesis 13. When observers are unsure if a veteran's military skills transfer to civilian job requirements then they will(a) rate veterans as less suitable for jobs, and (b) be less likely to hire them than when it is clear that military skill sets transferto civilian jobs.

2.1.4. Differences in organizational culturesAnother factor that may be related to hiring decisions about veterans is that raters often perceive that there is a difference in the

cultures of civilian and military organizations. As a result, veterans' role expectations and behaviors may not be congruent with therole requirements in civilian organizations. For example, military organizations are typically hierarchical or autocratic, and subordi-nates are expected to (a) followorders from superiors, (b) adhere to the chain of command, and (c) complywithwell-dened policiesand procedures (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Although civilian organizations in the U.S. vary, the culture of U.S. organizations reects thebroad values of the overall American culture (Trice & Beyer, 1993). For example, many civilian organizations in the U.S. have at oregalitarian organizational forms, exible rules and processes, and emphasize participation in decision-making, individualized free-dom, and supervisors who inuence rather than control subordinates (Trice & Beyer, 1993).

Given the difference in the military and civilian organizational cultures, raters may be concerned that veterans have internalizedmilitary roles that are not consistent with the role expectations in civilian organizations. For example, as a supervisor in the militarytheymay have learned to be autocratic, but this behaviormay not be effective in more egalitarian civilian organizations. Likewise, su-pervisors who are veterans may adhere rigidly to organizational policies and procedures, but civilian supervisory roles stress someexibility tomeet individual needs (e.g., time off to attend a child's school event). In view of the different role expectations inmilitaryand civilian organizations, decision makers may perceive that the skills and roles learned in the military may not transfer to civilianjobs. However, in some cases civilian organizational cultures and role expectations may be similar to those in the military (e.g., policeor security organizations), and in these cases veterans with military experience may be viewed as more suitable for jobs than others.Therefore, we believe that the degree to which the military culture and role requirements are perceived as similar to civilian cultureand role requirements may be key determinants of hiring decisions regarding veterans. To our knowledge, no research has examinedthis argument so we make the following prediction to foster additional research.

Hypothesis 14. When raters perceive that the role requirements of military organizational cultures are dissimilar to those in civilian

76 C. Stone, D.L. Stone / Human Resource Management Review 25 (2015) 6879familiar with military jobs, and make the inference that veterans do not have the KSAs needed to perform civilian jobs. As a result,we believe that decision makers should become familiar with military jobs and their associated KSAs. During the course of theirmilitary jobs, service members often receive extensive training and experience, and the skills gained in these positions may be espe-cially benecial to organizations. One strategy that organizations can use to become familiar with military jobs is to use the specialfeatures of O'Net that allows employers to determine if the KSAs associated with military jobs are similar to civilian positions. Weknow of no research on this issue so we present a hypothesis to guide research:

Hypothesis 17. When decision makers become familiar with the nature and KSAs associated with military jobs, (a) they will rateveterans as more suitable for jobs, and (b) be more likely to hire them than when they do not become familiar with military jobs.

3.1.4. Strategy 4: Socialize veterans in the role requirements or norms in civilian organizationsAnother reason that veterans are often viewed as less suitable for jobs thannonveterans is that decisionmakers perceive that there

are differences in the role requirements in military and civilian organizational cultures. As a result, they believe that veterans mayhave learned distinct military roles, and have different assumptions about acceptable role behaviors in civilian organizations. Forexample, the U.S. Army's organizational culture can be labeled as a hierarchical structure that is based on a strict chain of commandand top down authority systems (Trice & Beyer, 1993). The Army's organizational culture is also characterized by an emphasis on:(a) stability and control, (b) formal rules and policies, (c) coordination and efciency, (d) teamwork, (e) goals and results, and(f) hard-driving competitiveness (Trice & Beyer, 1993). These characteristics are thought to guide behavior consciously or uncon-sciously, and individuals in the military are expected to follow supervisors' orders and rules, put the welfare of the country, Army,and teammembers before their own, and fulll their obligations even in the face of danger or adversity.

Although the culture of civilian organizations in the U.S. shares some of these values (e.g., teamwork), they typically focus oninformality, decentralized participative decision making, equality and egalitarianism, autonomy, individuality, and job enrichment(Trice & Beyer, 1993). As a result, employees in these organizations are expected to behave autonomously, participate in decision-In addition, organizations might alter stereotypes by tracking veterans' performance, and publicizing their many successes andcontributions in organizations.

They might also change organizational norms and values, and emphasize that they value attracting and including veterans. Thismay only be effective if top management stresses these new values. To our knowledge, very little research has addressed the strategynoted above. Therefore, we present the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 15. When organizations (a) increase positive contact with veterans, (b) use educational programs to dispel stereotypes,(c) publicize veterans' job successes, and (d) change the organizational culture to emphasize values regarding hiring veterans, hiringdecisions about veterans will be more positive than when organizations do not use these strategies.

3.1.2. Strategy 2: Hire and train decision makersAnother strategy that organizations might use to increase the inclusion of veterans is to hire decision makers who value hiring

veterans and members of other diverse groups. Organizations should use training to ensure that the goal of hiring veterans is clearto decision makers. In addition, they might recognize and reward decision makers who attract, hire, and place veterans who aresuccessful in the organizations. Furthermore, organizations could use recruiting strategies that focus on military outplacement orga-nizations, rehabilitation groups, and other veterans' associations, to identify veterans who have the KSAs that meet job requirements.They could also provide recruiting bonuses for employees who uncover and refer talented veterans to the organization. We know oflittle research on these strategies so we offer the hypothesis below:

Hypothesis 16. When organizations (a) employ decisionmakerswho value hiring veterans, (b) recognize and reward thosewhohireveterans, (c) use expanded recruiting to uncover talented veterans, and (d) give bonuses to employees who refer veterans, hiringdecisions will be more positive about veterans than when the organization does not use these strategies.

3.1.3. Strategy 3: Increase knowledge of military job-related tasks and KSAsAs noted previously, one reason that veterans may be perceived as unqualied for jobs is that decision makers are not always3.1.1. Strategy 1: Modifying beliefs about veteransIn our model, we emphasized that hiring decisions about veterans are inuenced heavily by observers' stereotypes, and veterans

are often stigmatized by virtue of their experiences in the military. Therefore, we believe that one important strategy is to alter ste-reotypes and unfounded beliefs about veterans. Although a few studies have focused on stereotypes of veterans (e.g., Bordieri &Drehmer, 1984; Dickstein et al., 2010), additional research is needed to identify the current job-related stereotypes attributed to vet-erans. A key goal of modifying these stereotypes is to ensure that organizational decisionmakers have an accurate picture of veterans'knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), and do not use unfounded beliefs to make hiring decisions about them. An understanding ofthese stereotypesmay be useful in designing trainingprograms and creating an organizational culture that fosters respect for veteransand other stigmatized persons.

One mechanism that can be used to change beliefs about veterans is to increase positive contact between decision makers andveterans. As noted previously, positive contact provides individuating information about individuals so that decision makers areaware of the person's actual characteristics rather than unsubstantiated stereotypes. Another mechanism is to use education andtraining programs to show decision makers that stereotypes are often inaccurate, and should not be applied to all group members.

77C. Stone, D.L. Stone / Human Resource Management Review 25 (2015) 6879esteem and self-efcacy levels which can inhibit their performance in the selection or interviewing process. The concept of self-stigmas is similar to that of stereotype threatwhich argues that when a person enters a situationwhere the stereotype of the person'sgroup becomes salient, concerns about being judged according to the stereotype decrease performance (Steele & Aronson, 1995).Even though stereotype threat can affect performance in a number of contexts, research showed that it has a deleterious effect ontest performance in the selection process. Most of the studies on stereotype threat focused on racial minorities and women (Steele& Aronson, 1995), but we believe that stereotype-threat may also hinder the performance of veterans in the employment process.Furthermore, self-stigmas or stereotype threatmay articially limit their career options and prevent them from realizing their full po-tential. Thus, we believe that strategies used to enhance their self esteem and job-related self-efcacy (e.g., outplacement programs,coaches or mentors, feedback, successful role models) may increase their job-related prospects. We know of no direct research onthese strategies for veterans; therefore, we suggest the hypothesis below:

Hypothesis 20. When veterans use (a) coaches, (b) feedback, and (c) successful role models to enhance their self-efcacy they will(d) be rated as more suitable for jobs and (e) receive more positive hiring decisions than when they do not.Although veteransmay have some legal recoursewhen they are discriminated against unfairly in the employment process, we be-lieve that the use of proactive strategies to modify stereotypes and identify skills may have a positive inuence on hiring decisions. Inparticular, veterans might use strategies to modify others' stereotypes, job related expectancies, and gain acceptance from decisionmakers. For example, we argue as do others (Hebl & Kleck, 2002; Ragins, 2008; Stone & Colella, 1996) that veterans should use oneormore impressionmanagement techniques (e.g., concealment, acknowledging a disability, emphasize skills and abilities) to enhanceothers' evaluations. First, veteransmay conceal invisible health conditions to avoid the negative attitudes and stigmas associatedwiththem especially if these conditions do not affect job performance. However, when a disability is apparent a concealment strategymaynot be feasible, and veterans may have to use alternative strategies. Furthermore, one problem with concealment strategies is thatsubsequent disclosure of a health condition or disability may violate others' expectations and result in negative reactions (Ragins,2008; Stone, Shetzer, & Eggleston, 1986; Tagalakis, Amsel, & Fichten, 1988). To date, the research on concealment strategies indicatedthat their effectiveness may depend on the nature of the disability and degree to which the disclosure is seen as voluntary (Stone,1986; Stone et al., 1986; Tagalakis et al., 1988). For instance, concealing physical disabilities may be perceived more positively thanconcealing neurological or psychological disabilities.

Another related impression-management strategy that can be used by veterans is to acknowledge their disabilities or health con-ditions (e.g., Belgrave &Mills, 1981; Evans, 1976; Hastorf,Wildfogel, & Cassman, 1979). For instance, if they have lost a limband have aprosthesis theymay discuss this with the decisionmaker, and let the person know that they arewell adjusted and performmost taskseasily. Research on this strategy revealed that itmay be effective because it reduces others' anxiety about discussing ability limitationswith a job candidate (e.g., Belgrave & Mills, 1981; Hastorf et al., 1979).

A third strategy that veteransmight use tomodify stereotypes is to convince decisionmakers that theyhave similar interests, opin-ions, and values. Research showed that this strategymay be effective because similarity increases liking (Belgrave, 1984; Byrne, 1971).Finally, veterans might alter others' stereotypes and job-related expectancies by revealing that they have the skills, abilities, andexperience needed to perform jobs. For instance, they could identify the specic skills gained in military service, and indicate howthese skills and abilities transfer to civilian jobs. As noted previously, this is a very difcult process for veterans, but they shouldgain assistance fromprofessionals (e.g., vocational rehabilitation counselors) in identifying transferable skills.We knowof no researchon these strategies for veterans; therefore, we present the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 19. When veterans use impression management techniques including (a) acknowledging health conditions or disabil-ities, or (b) convincing decision makers that they have similar interests and values, they will (c) be perceived as more suitable forjobs, and (d) receive more positive hiring decisions than when they do not.

3.2.2. Mechanism 2: Use of programs to build self-efcacy and self-esteemOne of the obstacles facing veterans in the employment process is that they often adopt self-stigmas which are negative precon-

ceptions associated with their membership in a stigmatized group (Dickstein et al., 2010). Self-stigmas often lower veterans' self-making, act proactively, and perform as an individual. Furthermore, managers are expected to allow employees to participate indecision making, and form relationships with them in order to elicit voluntary cooperation and behavior.

Given the differences in cultures of military and private-sector organizations, decision makers may not perceive that veterans twith the role requirements of civilian organizations. However, we believe that even though veterans may have been socialized in ahierarchical military culture, they are open to learning new roles and behaviors. Thus, we believe that outplacement organizationsshould use socialization and training programs that ensure that veterans know the norms, values, and role expectations of civilianorganizations. Of course, research is needed to determine if these strategies enhance the t between veterans' role expectationsand those of civilian organizations. Thus, we offer the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 18. When outplacement organizations socialize veterans in the norms, values, and role requirements of civilian organi-zations, raters will (a) perceive that veterans are more suitable for jobs, and (b) be more likely to hire them than when they have notbeen socialized in these norms and values.

3.2. Mechanisms that can be used by veterans

3.2.1. Mechanism 1: Use of impression management techniques

78 C. Stone, D.L. Stone / Human Resource Management Review 25 (2015) 68794. Conclusion

In the next few years we can expect increased troopwithdrawals from theMiddle East war zones, resulting in greater numbers ofcombat veterans searching for jobs in the private sector. Furthermore, we believe that these individuals and thosewho have returnedfrom other wars should have numerous problems gaining and maintaining employment. As a result, the unemployment rates ofveterans will be even higher in the coming years. Despite these recurring problems, little theoretical or empirical research in HRMhas identied the challenges that they face in the employment process. Thus, we modied and extended an existing model (Stone& Colella, 1996) to explain the factors that inuence hiring decisions about veterans, and offered some hypotheses to guide futureresearch on the topic. Our modied model indicated that the (a) attributes of the veteran, (b) the attributes of the observer, (c) thenature of the job, (d) the perceived transferability of military skills to civilian jobs, and (e) the differences betweenmilitary and civil-ian organizational cultures affect hiring decisions about veterans. We also used the model to suggest some strategies that organiza-tions and veterans can use to enhance their access to jobs. In conclusion, we believe that an increased understanding of the factorsthat affect selection decisions about veterans will facilitate their inclusion in organizations. Our hope is that the model and reviewof research on veterans will foster additional research on the topic, and uncover the issues that place limits on their ability to securejobs. In addition, we are optimistic that an improved understanding of these factors will help organizations utilize the many talentsand skills that veterans bring to the workforce, and enable veterans to enjoy a fullling work life.

References

Anderson, R. J., & Antonak, R. F. (1992). The influence of attitudes and contact on reactions to persons with physical and speech disabilities. Rehabilitation CounselingBulletin, 35(4), 240247.

Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and inter-group behavior (pp. 136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beckerman, A., & Fontana, L. (1989). Vietnam veterans and the criminal justice system: A selected review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 16(4), 412428.Belgrave, F. Z. (1984). The effectiveness of strategies for increasing social interaction with a physically disabled person. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14(2),

147161.Belgrave, F. Z., & Mills, J. (1981). Effect upon desire for social interaction with a physically disabled person of mentioning the disability in different contexts. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 11(1), 4457.Bordieri, J. E., & Drehmer, D. E. (1984). Vietnam veterans: Fighting the employment war. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 341347.Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1985). The psychology of intergroup attitudes and behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 36(1), 219243.Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013). U.S. Department of Labor, The Editor's Desk, Unemployment among veterans of the U.S. Armed Forced declines in 2012. Retrieved from

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130322.htm.Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic.Byrne, D., London, O., & Reeves, K. (1968). The effects of physical attractiveness, sex, and attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality, 36,

259271.Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied psychology in human resource management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Cesare, S. J., Tannenbaum, R. J., & Dalessio, A. (1990). Interviewers' decisions related to applicant handicap type and rater empathy. Human Performance, 3(3), 157171.Colella, A., & Stone, D. L. (2005). Workplace discrimination toward persons with disabilities: A call for some new research directions. Discrimination at work: The

psychological and organizational bases, 227253.Commisso, M., & Finkelstein, L. (2012). Physical attractiveness bias in employee termination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(12), 29682987.Corrigan, P. W., Edwards, A.B., Green, A., Diwan, S. L., & Penn, D. L. (2001). Prejudice, social distance, and familiarity with mental illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 27(2),

219225.Dickstein, B., Vogt, D., Handa, S., & Litz, B. (2010). Targeting self stigma in returning military personnel and veterans: A review of intervention strategies. Military

Psychology, 22(2), 224236.Evans, J. H. (1976). Changing attitudes toward disabled persons: An experimental study. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 19(4), 572579.Frith, G. H., & Mitchell, J. W. (1981). The attitudes of nonhandicapped students toward the mildly retarded: A consideration in placement decisions. Education and

Training of the Mentally Retarded, 16, 7983.Gaier, E. L., Linkowski, D. C., & Jaques, M. E. (1968). Contact as a variable in the perception of disability. The Journal of Social Psychology, 74(1), 117126.Gibbs, D., Olmstead, K., Brown, J., & Clinton-Sherrod, A. (2011). Dynamics of stigma for alcohol and mental health treatment among Army soldiers.Military Psychology,

23(1), 3651.Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Harrell, M. C., & Berglass, N. (2012). Employing American veterans: Perspectives from business. Washington, DC: Center for New American Society.Gurchiek, K. (2011). Good Will Toward Disabled Vets Mixed with Uncertainty over Accommodation. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/about/news/pages/

uncertainaccommodations.aspx.Hastorf, A. H., Wildfogel, J., & Cassman, T. (1979). Acknowledgement of handicap as a tactic in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10),

1790.Hebl, M. R., & Kleck, R. E. (2002). Acknowledging one's stigma in the interview setting: Effective strategy or liability? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(2),

223249.Heilman, M. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. In B.M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 5. (pp. 269298).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Hosoda, M., Stone, D. L., & StoneRomero, E. F. (2003). The interactive effects of race, gender, and job type on job suitability ratings and selection decisions. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 33(1), 145178.Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Coats, G. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel

Psychology, 56, 431462.Johnson, R., & Heal, L. W. (1976). Private employment agency responses to the physically handicapped applicant in a wheelchair. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation

Counseling, 7(1), 1221.Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., & Scott, R. A. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York: Freeman.Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. South Melbourne, Australia: Wadsworth.Kim, P., Britt, T., Klocko, R., Riviere, L., & Adler, A. (2011). Stigma, negative attitudes about treatment, and utilization of mental health care among soldiers. Military

Psychology, 23(1), 6581.Kleck, R. (1968). Physical stigma and nonverbal cues emitted in face-to-face interaction. Human Relations, 21, 1928.Kleykamp, M. (2009). A great place to start? The effect of prior military service on hiring. Armed Forces and Society, 35(2), 266285.Krefting, L. A., & Brief, A. P. (1976). The impact of applicant disability on evaluative judgments in the selection process. Academy of Management Journal, 19(4),

675680.

Mangum, S. L., & Ball, D. E. (1987). Military skill training: Some evidence of transferability. Armed Forces & Society, 13(3), 425441.McFarling, L., D'Angelo, M., Drain, M., Gibbs, D., & Olmstead, K. (2011). Stigma as a barrier to substance abuse and mental health treatment.Military Psychology, 23(1),

15.Noonan, J. R., Barry, J. R., & Davis, H. C. (1970). Personality determinants in attitudes toward visible disability. Journal of Personality, 38(1), 115.Olmstead, K., Brown, J., Vandermaas-Peeler, J., Tueller, S., Johnson, R., & Gibbs, D. (2011). Mental health and substance abuse treatment stigma among soldiers.Military

Psychology, 23(1), 5264.Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751783.Plaks, J. E., Stroessner, S. J., Dweck, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2001). Person theories and attention allocation: Preferences for stereotypic versus counterstereotypic

information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 876893.Prudential (2012). Veteran employment challenges: Perceptions and experiences of transitioning from military to civilian life. Newark, NJ: Prudential Financial Inc.Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnect: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33,

194215.Richardson, S. A., Goodman, N., Hastorf, A. H., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1961). Cultural uniformity in reaction to physical disabilities. American Sociological Review, 26(2),

241247.Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,

797819.Stone, D. L. (1986). The effects of nondisclosure of physical handicaps on personnel selection decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Man-

agement, Chicago.Stone, D. L., & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 352401.Stone, E. F., Shetzer, L., & Eggleston, S. (1986). Effect of handicap type, handicap revelation mode, and interviewee ratings of applicant suitability. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.Stone, E. F., Stone, D. L., & Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Stigmas in organizations: Race, handicaps, and physical unattractiveness. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in

industrial organizational psychology (pp. 385457). New York: Elsevier.Stone-Romero, E. F. (2011). Research strategies in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Nonexperimental, quasi-experimental, and randomized experimental

research in special and non-special purpose settings. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1. (pp. 3772). Washington,D.C.: APA.

Sudom, K., Zamorski, M., & Garber, B. (2012). Stigma and barriers to mental health care in deployed Canadian forces personnel. Military Psychology, 24(4), 414431.Tagalakis, V., Amsel, R., & Fichten, C. S. (1988). Job interview strategies for people with a visible disability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 18, 520532.Syracuse University, Institute for Veterans and Military Families (2012). The Business Case for Hiring a Veteran: Beyond the Cliches. Retrieved from http://vets.syr.edu/

wp-content/uploads/2012/08/The-Business-Case-for-Hiring-a-Veteran-3-6-124.pdf.Taylor, S. E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 83114).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Tringo, J. L. (1970). The hierarchy of preference toward disability groups. The Journal of Special Education, 4, 295306.U.S. Department of Labor (2012). Health Care Initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.doleta.gov/BRG/Indprof/Health.cfm.Weinberg, N. (1976). Social stereotyping of the physically handicapped. Rehabilitation Psychology, 23(4), 115124.Whiteman, M., & Lukoff, I. F. (1965). Attitudes toward blindness and other physical handicaps. The Journal of Social Psychology, 66(1), 135145.Wigboldus, D. H. J., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (2003). When stereotypes get in the way: Stereotypes obstruct stereotype-inconsistent trait inferences.

79C. Stone, D.L. Stone / Human Resource Management Review 25 (2015) 6879Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 470484.Yuker, H. E. (1988). The effects of contact on attitudes toward disabled persons: Some empirical generalizations. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with

disabilities (pp. 262274). New York: Springer.

Factors affecting hiring decisions about veterans1. Introduction2. Modification of the Stone and Colella (1996) model2.1. Categorization and stereotyping of veterans2.1.1. Attributes of the veteran2.1.1.1. Presence/nature of a disability2.1.1.2. Danger/peril/disruptiveness2.1.1.3. Aesthetic qualities2.1.1.4. Origin2.1.1.5. Course2.1.1.6. Other attributes of the veteran

2.1.2. Attributes of the observer2.1.2.1. Observers' values2.1.2.2. Observers' personality2.1.2.3. Observers' military experience or previous contact with veterans

2.1.3. Nature of the job2.1.3.1. Stereotype-job fit2.1.3.2. Ambiguity about veterans' skills

2.1.4. Differences in organizational cultures

3. Strategies to enhance veterans' employment opportunities3.1. Strategies that can be used by organizations3.1.1. Strategy 1: Modifying beliefs about veterans3.1.2. Strategy 2: Hire and train decision makers3.1.3. Strategy 3: Increase knowledge of military job-related tasks and KSAs3.1.4. Strategy 4: Socialize veterans in the role requirements or norms in civilian organizations

3.2. Mechanisms that can be used by veterans3.2.1. Mechanism 1: Use of impression management techniques3.2.2. Mechanism 2: Use of programs to build self-efficacy and self-esteem

4. ConclusionReferences