Group & Organization Management-2005-Goldberg-597-624.pdf

http://gom.sagepub.com/Group & Organization Management

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/30/6/597The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1059601104267661

2005 30: 597Group & Organization ManagementCaren B. Goldberg

Decisions: Are we Missing Something?Relational Demography and Similarity-Attraction in Interview Assessments and Subsequent Offer

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Group & Organization ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/30/6/597.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Oct 20, 2005Version of Record >>

at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 9, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 9, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://gom.sagepub.com/

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/30/6/597

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/30/6/597.refs.html

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/30/6/597.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



10.1177/1059601104267661GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENTGoldberg / RELATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY

Relational Demography andSimilarity-Attraction inInterview Assessments andSubsequent Offer Decisions

ARE WE MISSING SOMETHING?

CAREN B. GOLDBERGGeorge Washington University

This study examines whether recruiter-applicant demographic similarity affects selection deci-sions. In addition, the mediators proposed by the similarity-attraction paradigm were tested.However, consistent with Graves and Powell’s (1995) findings and with the propositions ofsocial identity theory, I also proposed that female recruiters would prefer male applicants. Sig-nificant race similarity effects were observed for White recruiters on overall interview assess-ments and offer decisions, sex dissimilarity had a significant direct effect on overall interviewassessments, and age similarity was not related to either criterion. In addition, there was someevidence that the significant direct effects were mediated by perceived similarity and interper-sonal attraction. The sex dissimilarity effect appeared to be the result of male recruiters’ prefer-ence for female applicants. Post hoc analyses revealed that this relationship was mediated byapplicant appearance.

Keywords: relational demography; applicant assessments; similarity-attraction; demographicsimilarity; recruiter-applicant similarity; recruiter assessments

Organizational researchers have studied the impact of demographic vari-ables on work outcomes for decades. During the past several years, however,interest in demography has shifted away from simple effects toward morecomplex relational demography models (cf. O’Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett,

The author gratefully acknowledges the methodological assistance provided by FranYammarino and Philip Wirtz and the constructive comments provided by Patrick McHugh andAnne Tsui. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Caren B.Goldberg, Department of Management Science, George Washington University, School of Busi-ness and Public Management, Washington, DC 20052; phone: (202) 994-1590; fax: (202) 994-4930; e-mail: [email protected].

Group & Organization Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, December 2005 597-624DOI: 10.1177/1059601104267661© 2005 Sage Publications

597

at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 9, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from


1989; Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). The centralidea of relational demography is that it is not an individual’s demographiccharacteristics, per se, that affect work attitudes and behaviors; rather, it is anindividual’s demographic characteristics relative to a referent other or groupthat explain these criteria. Specifically, relational demography predicts thatindividuals who are similar to referent others will experience more positiveoutcomes than will those who are dissimilar to referent others.

Despite the abundance of research that has linked demographic similarityto work outcomes (Jackson et al., 1991; O’Reilly et al., 1989; Riordan &Shore, 1997; Tsui et al., 1992; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989; Zenger & Lawrence,1989), only a handful of studies have examined the impact of demographicsimilarity on applicant assessments in applied settings (Graves & Powell,1995, 1996; Lin, Dobbins, & Farh, 1992; Prewett-Livingston, Field, Veres,& Lewis, 1996). The present study builds on this research and addresses twolimitations of prior research: It includes several indices of recruiter-applicantdemographic similarity in the same model, and it includes recruiters’ imme-diate, postinterview impressions as well as actual subsequent hiring deci-sions. The current investigation makes an important theoretical contributionas well. In response to Lawrence’s (1997) lament that organizational demog-raphy researchers “usually leave the concepts unmeasured and hypothesesuntested” (p. 2), this study considers one of the intervening processes thatmay explain why organizational demography affects selection.

DEMOGRAPHIC SIMILARITY AS A PREDICTOROF SELECTION OUTCOMES

A number of relational demography studies have suggested that demo-graphic similarity in dyads results in favorable outcomes (Judge & Ferris,1993; Lagace, 1990; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989; Tsui, Xin, & Egan, 1995). Theconceptual rationale underlying this stream of research stems from socialidentity theory. Social identity theory posits that individuals determine theirsocial identity by categorizing themselves, categorizing others, and attachingvalue to different social categories (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Tajfel, 1982;Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner & Oakes, 1986). As individuals strive tomaintain consistent identities (Steele, 1988), evaluating similar others morefavorably than dissimilar others is one means by which an individualmaintains a positive identity (self-continuity drive).

Researchers have examined the impact of relational demographic charac-teristics on employees’ work-related attitudes, intentions, and behaviors andon supervisors’ assessments of employees (cf. Jackson et al., 1991; Riordan& Shore, 1997; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). However, relatively little applied

598 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT



research has examined the impact of recruiter-applicant similarity on organi-zational entry outcomes (for exceptions, see Graves & Powell, 1995, 1996;Lin et al., 1992; and Prewett-Livingston et al., 1996). The literature linkingperson-organization fit to selection outcomes (Schneider, 1987) would sug-gest that as recruiters presumably view themselves as successful organiza-tional members, they will seek applicants who are demographically similarto themselves, with the expectation that the applicants, too, will fit in theorganization (Judge & Ferris, 1991). Indeed, several laboratory studies haveprovided evidence that recruiter-applicant race similarity (Rand & Wexley,1975) and sex similarity (Heilman, Martell, & Simon, 1988; Wiley &Eskilson, 1985) are positively related to selection decisions.

Despite the lack of applied research examining the impact of relationaldemography on selection, there is reason to believe that relational demogra-phy’s impact on selection outcomes should be at least as great as its impact onother work criteria. Specifically, Pelled (1997) and Harrison, Price, and Bell(1998) contend that initial categorizations are accompanied by perceptionsof similarity that are based on surface-level demographic data. Moreover,Milliken and Martins (1996) suggest that “diversity on observable attributescreates more serious negative affective reactions than diversity on underly-ing attributes” (p. 415). For this reason, the present study focuses on thosedemographic similarity variables that are easily observed (age, race, andsex). Moreover, Ravenson’s (1989) and Gordon, Rozelle, and Baxter’s(1988) findings that stereotyping is more apt to occur when minimal otherdata about the target are available suggest that similarity biases may be morepronounced in the context of an employment interview than in the context ofintact manager-employee dyads. Therefore, I predict that recruiter-applicantdemographic similarity will be positively related to selection outcomes.

Hypothesis 1a: Recruiter-applicant demographic similarity will have a direct pos-itive effect on overall interview assessments.

Hypothesis 1b: Recruiter-applicant demographic similarity will have a direct pos-itive effect on subsequent offer decisions.

SIMILARITY-ATTRACTION

The similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971) is closely related to socialidentity theory; however, the former elaborates on the intervening processesthat occur between recognition of a referent other as similar and the ensuingfavorable assessments of the referent other. In particular, the similarity-attraction paradigm posits that individuals who are similar will be interper-sonally attracted. Because of this attraction (liking), they will experiencepositive outcomes. Although the early work on similarity-attraction focused

Goldberg / RELATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY 599



on attitudinal similarity (Byrne, 1971; Byrne & Clore, 1970), subsequentresearch suggests that observable attributes, such as demographic character-istics, likely affect interpersonal attraction as well. Specifically, Ferris,Judge, Rowland, and Fitzgibbons (1994) and Tsui and O’Reilly (1989)found that supervisor-subordinate demographic similarity was positivelyrelated to supervisors’ liking of subordinates.

Although a number of researchers have examined whether demographicsimilarity results in positive work attitudes and behaviors (Jackson et al., 1991;O’Reilly et al., 1989; Riordan & Shore, 1997; Tsui et al., 1992; Tsui & O’Reilly,1989; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989), they have relied on the similarity-attractionparadigm as an assumption and have not tested it explicitly. That is, directlinks between demographic similarity and work criteria provide support forthe notion that demographics relative to others are important; however, theselinks do not necessarily provide support for the underlying similarity-attrac-tion framework. Such studies treat demographic similarity variables as indi-cators of subjective concepts that explain the outcomes. An alternative per-spective is that a subjective concept intervenes between the demographicsimilarity variables and the outcomes (Lawrence, 1997). Graves and Powell(1995) provide a comprehensive explanation of this intervening process inthe context of selection:

Demographic similarity between the recruiter and applicant on characteristicssuch as sex leads to perceived similarity in attitudes and values which in turnleads to interpersonal attraction between the recruiter and the applicant. Inter-personal attraction then leads to positive bias in the recruiter’s interviewconduct. (p. 86)

Thus, the impact of demographic similarity on selection outcomes may beviewed as a mediated process with multiple steps, with each step a little moreremoved from the starting point. In the initial encounter, the recruiterobserves the applicant’s demographic characteristics and makes a determi-nation as to whether these characteristics are similar or dissimilar to therecruiter’s own demographics. If the recruiter is demographically similar tothe applicant, he or she is apt to presume that the applicant has attitudes andbeliefs that are similar to his or her attitudes and beliefs. The link betweenperceived attitudinal similarity and interpersonal attraction can be tracedback to Byrne and Clore (1970) who proposed that agreement with anotherperson validates one’s own beliefs and satisfies a drive to “interpret the envi-ronment correctly, and to function effectively in understanding and predict-ing events” (p. 118). When this drive is satisfied, an individual attaches posi-tive affect to the source, as evidenced by their attraction to the source. The




similarity-attraction paradigm further posits that when we are attracted to areferent other, we tend to make more favorable overall assessments of theother. Indeed, both laboratory (Howard & Ferris, 1996) and field (Kinicki &Lockwood, 1985; Wade & Kinicki, 1997) studies of the employment inter-view have found significant relationships between affect and attractiontoward applicants and recruiters’ evaluations of them. Finally, consistentwith the notion that intentions lead to behaviors (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975),there is some evidence in the selection literature that interviewers’ impres-sions of applicants are linked to final offer decisions (Cable & Judge, 1997).Thus, it is reasonable to expect overall interview assessments to be positivelyrelated to subsequent offer decisions. However, because several factors out-side of the recruiter influence final offer decisions (e.g.., whether the appli-cant is invited for an on-site interview), the direct effect of demographic sim-ilarity on this outcome is likely smaller than is the direct effect ofdemographic similarity on recruiters’ postinterview assessments. The fore-going suggests that the relationship between demographic similarity andfinal offer decision is mediated by several intervening variables, which aredepicted in Figure 1.

Hypothesis 2a: Recruiter-applicant demographic similarity will have an indirecteffect on overall interview assessments through perceived attitudinal similar-ity and interpersonal attraction, such that recruiters will evaluate demographi-cally similar applicants higher than demographically dissimilar applicants onperceived attitudinal similarity and interpersonal attraction.

Hypothesis 2b: Recruiter-applicant demographic similarity will have an indirecteffect on offer decisions through perceived attitudinal similarity, interpersonalattraction, and overall interview assessments, such that recruiters will evaluatedemographically similar applicants higher than demographically dissimilarapplicants on perceived attitudinal similarity, interpersonal attraction, andoverall interview assessments.

AN ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE OF RELATIONAL SEX

Although there has been a good deal of support for the relationshipsproposed in the previous section, other studies suggest that the similarity-attraction paradigm may be an inadequate explanation for the impact of sexsimilarity on applicant assessments. In particular, Graves and Powell (1995)found that sex similarity was unrelated to interpersonal attraction and inter-view outcomes, but that it was negatively related to perceived similarity.Specifically, whereas male recruiters saw male and female applicants asnonsignificantly different with respect to perceived attitudinal similarity,female recruiters’ perceptions of attitudinal similarity were greater for maleapplicants than for female applicants. They argued that because women are




generally afforded lower status than are men, the female recruiters sought toidentify with the higher-status male applicants. Indeed, the social identitytheory (SIT) literature suggests that a second means by which individualsmaintain positive identity is by identifying with groups that are status-enhancing (self-enhancement drive). This research suggests that individualsmay favor outgroup members over ingroup members if the outgroup enjoyshigher status than the ingroup does (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Indeed, sev-eral laboratory studies have demonstrated that membership in a low statusgroup is negatively related to identification with one’s own group and posi-tively related to favoritism toward outgroup members (Ellemers, Wilke, &van Knippenberg, 1993; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1991). Likewise, appliedresearch suggests that females tend to identify with males to maintain a posi-tive social identity (Ely, 1994, 1995; Gutek, 1985) and that the drive for self-enhancement moderates the relationship between sex similarity and workoutcomes (Goldberg, Riordan, & Schaffer, 2003).

Further evidence to support the contention that women may identify morewith men than with other women comes from research on gender roles. Inparticular, Konrad, Corrigall, Lieb, and Ritchie (2000) found that women’spreferences for male-typed job attributes are greater for female managersthan for female students. Moreover, Konrad, Ritchie, Lieb, and Corrigall(2000) found that whereas in the general population women and men dif-fered significantly in their preferences for various job attributes, women whowere in masculine-typed occupations had very similar job attribute prefer-ences to men. Likewise, Kirchmeyer (2002) examined the stability of mascu-linity and femininity longitudinally and found that female managers’ femi-ninity decreased significantly during a 4-year period, suggesting thatfemininity is negatively related to career success for women. Together, thesefindings suggest that women with more masculine-typed attitudes towardwork are more likely to select and remain in masculine-typed occupations.


ObservableDemographic

Similarity

Age

Race

Sex

PerceivedSimilarity

InterpersonalAttraction

Overall InterviewAssessments

OfferDecision

Figure 1: Proposed Similarity-Attraction Model



Thus, female recruiters may see male candidates as more similar to them-selves (in terms of femininity) than female candidates. Consequently,women in successful jobs (such as recruiters) are likely to identify more withmen than with other women. Moreover, the great majority of the jobs forwhich applicants were interviewing are stereotypically masculine jobs(Goldberg, Finkelstein, Perry, & Konrad, in press), strengthening the suit-ability of male applicants. Consequently, I propose that sex similarity will benegatively related to the outcomes for women.

Hypothesis 3a: Recruiter-applicant sex similarity will have an indirect effect onoverall interview assessments through perceived attitudinal similarity andinterpersonal attraction, such that female recruiters will evaluate female appli-cants lower than male applicants on perceived attitudinal similarity and inter-personal attraction, whereas male recruiters will not distinguish between maleand female applicants.

Hypothesis 3b: Recruiter-applicant sex similarity will have an indirect effect onoffer decisions through perceived attitudinal similarity, interpersonal attrac-tion, and overall interview assessments, such that female recruiters will evalu-ate female applicants lower than male applicants on perceived attitudinal simi-larity, interpersonal attraction, and overall interview assessments, whereasmale recruiters will not distinguish between male and female applicants.

METHOD

SAMPLE

Participants included applicants and recruiters utilizing the career ser-vices offices of three colleges in the southeastern United States betweenMarch and June, 1996. Recruiting organizations represented a wide varietyof industries. A breakdown by industry category is presented in Table 1.

A similar process was used at all three schools: Companies provided thecareer services office with a list of minimum qualifications, then the careerservices office sent resumes of applicants who met those qualifications. Insome cases, the organizations prescreened resumes, asking that only a subsetof highly qualified applicants be scheduled for campus interviews. In othercases, any applicants who met the minimum qualifications was permitted toschedule an interview. As I was physically present to personally hand the sur-veys to the recruiters at nearly all of the interviews, the response rate was veryhigh (90%). Each observation was composed of an applicant-recruiter dyad.As every recruiter interviewed between 1 and 14 applicants (M = 7.7), therewas a total of 311 pairs, representing the matching of 45 recruiters with 210applicants. All 311 dyads were used for the analyses involving perceived




similarity, interpersonal attraction, and overall interview assessments; how-ever, because of the drop-off rate of recruiters responding to the follow-upsurvey, there were only 273 pairs for the analyses involving subsequent offerdecisions.

The recruiters included 23 human resource professionals and 22 manag-ers in the departments for which the organizations were recruiting. Theiraverage age was 37.5 years (SD = 8.19), and their average company tenurewas 6.73 years (SD = 6.82). Nearly 66% were male, and 88.6% had at least acollege degree. All recruiters were either Caucasian (81.7%) or AfricanAmerican (18.3%).

The average age of applicants was 27.5 years (SD = 6.04). Most (65.7%)were male, and 78.1% were completing (or had recently completed) theirbachelor’s degrees. Approximately 62% were Caucasian, 18.6% were Afri-can American, 11.4% were Asian, and 5.2% were Hispanic. The most popu-lar majors of applicants were information systems (13.8%), finance (12.4%),marketing (8.6%), and management (7.2%).

PROCEDURE

College A provided a list of the names and telephone numbers of recruit-ers who would be participating in campus interviews. Prior to the interviewdate, I contacted the recruiters by telephone to discuss their participation. Onthe day of the interviews, I met with the recruiters when they arrived toremind them about the study and to provide them with their surveys. Two


TABLE 1

Industrial Classifications of Recruiting Organizations

Industry Category Percentage of Organizations

Banking 11.1Consulting services 2.2Financial services 2.2Government 4.4Hospitality 4.4Manufacturing, consumer products 13.3Manufacturing, high technology products 15.6Manufacturing, industrial products 11.1Retail 8.9Services, other 15.6Telecommunications 11.1



separate types of surveys were provided. The first survey was completedprior to conducting any interviews. It asked respondents to provide demo-graphic information about themselves and to evaluate applicants solely onthe basis of their resumes. Recruiters were given one copy of the second sur-vey for each applicant they would be interviewing. To eliminate memorybiases, they were asked to complete these surveys immediately followingeach interview. In almost all cases, the recruiters handed the completed sur-veys back to me prior to leaving. In a few instances, however, they mailedthem in a preaddressed envelope.

At Colleges B and C, the process was similar, with some minor excep-tions. First, the directors of the career services offices telephoned the recruit-ers to discuss their participation. Second, on occasion, the director of thecareer services office at College B handed the packets to the recruiters andrequested their participation on my behalf. Last, at College A, applicantdemographic data were provided by the career services office. At Colleges Band C, this information was provided on a survey administered to applicantsfor other purposes.

I contacted the recruiters by telephone between 2 and 4 months after thecampus interviews. At that time, they indicated which applicants had beenoffered jobs with their organization.

MEASURES

Control variables. Recruiters’ assessments are primarily driven by theirassessments of applicants’ scholastic standing and work experience(Dipboye, 1992). Thus, an item that asked respondents to evaluate the appli-cant relative to other applicants they would be interviewing, solely on thebasis of his or her resume, was used as a control variable. Responses rangedfrom 1 (very unqualified) to 5 (very qualified). Although Dipboye (1992)notes that resumes may be contaminated with demographic information, thecorrelations between the resume variable and each of the applicant demo-graphic characteristics were nonsignificant, suggesting that recruiters did notconsider demographic information in their assessments of applicants’resumes. The age, race, and sex of applicants and recruiters were alsoincluded as control variables. Age was continuous; sex was coded as –1 formales and 1 for females. Race was coded as –1 for Caucasians and 1 for Afri-can Americans (race-similarity analyses were limited to dyads comprisingapplicants of these two groups because all recruiters were either Caucasian orAfrican American).




Demographic similarity. Edwards (1994) notes that similarity on continu-ous variables is best captured by polynomial expressions, as this approachavoids many of the limitations of difference scores. For example, differencescores would treat a dyad in which the recruiter was 30 and the applicant was25 identically to a dyad in which the recruiter was 50 and the applicant was45. Likewise, as differences scores are typically calculated as absolute val-ues, they fail to distinguish between dyads in which the magnitude of age dif-ference is the same but the direction of the relationship is different (i.e., a 30-year-old applicant with a 25-year-old recruiter would be treated the same as a25-year-old applicant with a 30-year-old recruiter). Thus, to measure agesimilarity, I used polynomial terms. As polynomial terms comprise the sim-ple effects for applicant age and recruiter age, their interaction, and thesquares of these terms, a significant effect is evidenced only when allcomponents are significant.

Because applicant and recruiter sex were effects coded (–1/1), sex simi-larity was computed as the interaction of these two variables. The effectscoding (–1/1) of recruiter and applicant sex created interaction terms, suchthat same-sex pairs were always positive and opposite sex pairs were alwaysnegative. Male recruiter–male applicant dyads represented 38% of the sam-ple, male recruiter–female applicant dyads represented 23.4%, femalerecruiter–male applicant dyads represented 21.3%, and female recruiter–female applicant dyads represented 17.3%. Race similarity was computed asthe interaction of the effects coded applicant race and recruiter race variables.Of the dyads included in the race analyses, 56.6% comprised Caucasianrecruiter–Caucasian applicant pairs, 20% comprised Caucasian recruiter–African American applicant pairs, 17.7% comprised African Americanrecruiter–Caucasian applicant pairs, and 5.7% comprised African Americanrecruiter–African American pairs.

Mediators and outcomes. Byrne’s (1971) 4-item similarity scale was usedto measure perceived similarity. The alpha coefficient of the scale was .94.Interpersonal attraction was assessed using Byrne’s 2-item interpersonalattraction scale (alpha = .93). Although Byrne used a 7-point scale, a 5-pointscale was used in the present study, with responses ranging from strongly dis-agree (1) to strongly agree (5). The overall interview assessment measurewas composed of 3 items measuring the likelihood that the applicant wouldbe offered the job, the likelihood that the organization would consider theapplicant, and the likelihood that the applicant would be invited for an on-siteinterview (alpha = .92). Responses ranged from strongly disagree (1) tostrongly agree (5). Between 2 and 4 months after the interviews, recruiters




indicated whether the applicant had been offered the job. Responses werecoded as 0 (not offered) and 1 (offered).

DATA ANALYSIS

Because each recruiter evaluated multiple applicants, the issue ofnonindependence of observations needed to be addressed prior to testing thehypotheses. To address this issue, a dummy variable was created for eachrecruiter. These dummy variables were used as controls.

Hierarchical linear regression was used to test the hypotheses regardingoverall interview assessments, interpersonal attraction, and perceived simi-larity. However, for the dichotomous offer-decision criterion, logisticregression was used. The incremental step test for this variable was the χ2

improvement test, which is analogous to an F test (Menard, 1995).As described in the next section, where significant direct effects were

found, these were followed-up with tests for mediation using the proceduredetailed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and by Kenny (1998).

As the recruiters’ role in the selection process may affect the results, I ranthe analyses with recruiter job type (1 = human resources, 2 = manager in thedepartment for which the organization was recruiting) as a control. Presum-ably, those in the latter category play a larger role in the selection process.However, this variable was not significant; therefore, I did not retain it.

RESULTS

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations are presented in Table2. The results presented here provide some initial support for the proposedsimilarity-attraction model.

To assess the independence of the constructs, a confirmatory factor analy-sis was performed on the overall interview assessment, perceived similarity,and interpersonal attraction measures. Several fit indices were used to deter-mine the suitability of the proposed three-factor model as compared to amodel in which all items were specified to load on a single factor. The one-factor model did not fit the data: χ2 = 1551.84, 27 df (p < .01); GFI = .50;AGFI = .16; NFI = .65; CFI = .65; and RMR = .14. In contrast, although the χ2

(190.48, 24 df) for the three-factor model was significant at p < .01, all of theother measures indicated acceptable fit: GFI = .90; AGFI = .81; NFI = .96;CFI = .96; and RMR = .04. Thus, the three-factor solution fit the data well.

The first hypothesis predicted that demographic similarity would affectoverall interview assessments and final offer decisions. The regression




608

TA

BL

E 2

Mea

ns, S

tand

ard

Dev

iati

ons,

and

Int

erco

rrel

atio

ns

MSD

1.2.

3.4.

5.6.

7.8.

9.10

.11

.12

.13

.14

.15

.16

.

1. A

pplic

ant a

ge27

.50

5.93

1.00

2. A

pplic

ant r

ace

–.17

.98

–12*

1.00

3. A

pplic

ant s

ex–.

18.9

9–.

10.2

1**

1.00

4. R

ecru

iter

age

36.6

87.

94.0

6.1

3*–.

041.

005.

Rec

ruite

r ra

ce–.

41.9

1.0

3.0

1.0

6–.

17**

1.00

6. R

ecru

iter

sex

–.12

.99

–.03

.09

.07

–.19

**.4

5**

1.00

7. A

pplic

ant×

recr

uite

r ag

e—

—.7

1**

.01

–.13

.73*

*–.

06–.

14**

1.00

8. A

pplic

ant a

ge2

——

.99*

*–.

13*

–.09

.05

.02

–.03

.70

1.00

9. R

ecru

iter

age2

——

.07

.14*

–.03

.99*

*–.

17**

–.18

**.7

4**

.06

1.00

10.

Rac

e si

mila

rity

——

–.02

–.41

**–.

09–.

07–.

15**

–.18

**–.

05–.

02–.

081.

0011

. Se

x si

mila

rity

——

.08

–.02

–.11

*.0

9–.

13*

–.17

**.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

11.

0012

. R

esum

e qu

ality

3.49

.88

.06

–.04

–.02

.13*

–.09

–.14

*–.

14**

.07

.13*

.05

.00

1.00

13.

Perc

eive

d si

mila

rity

3.16

.69

.00

–.08

.10

.00

–.04

.08

.01

–.01

.01

.12*

–.09

.29*

*1.

0014

. In

terp

erso

nal

attr

actio

n3.

50.7

6–.

07–.

04.1

1.1

5**

–.08

.04

.05

–.07

.16*

*.0

8–.

06.4

6**

.62*

*1.

0015

. O

vera

ll in

terv

iew

asse

ssm

ent

3.07

.88

–.06

–.18

.03

.05

–.05

.06

.02

–.03

.05

.16*

*–.

07.4

7**

.56*

*.6

6**

1.00

16.

Off

er d

ecis

ion

.12

.33

–.02

–.08

–.03

.04

–.13

*–.

21**

–.01

–.03

.04

.11

.08

.19*

*.0

9.2

5**

.26*

*1.

00

NO

TE

:R

ace

was

code

dsu

chth

at–1

=W

hite

and

1=

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an.S

exw

asco

ded

such

that

–1=

mal

ean

d1

=fe

mal

e.R

ace

and

sex

wer

esi

mila

rity

code

dsu

ch th

at –

1 =

dis

sim

ilar

pair

san

d 1

= s

imila

r pa

irs.

Off

er d

ecis

ion

was

cod

ed s

uch

that

0 =

not

off

ered

and

1 =

off

ered

.*p

≤.0

5. *

*p≤

.01.



analyses for age, sex, and race similarity are presented in Tables 3, 4, and 5,respectively. Contrary to expectations, age similarity was unrelated to eitherof these criteria. Sex similarity had a significant impact on overall interviewassessments but was not significantly related to offer decisions. The nature ofthis effect is displayed in the third panel of Figure 2. This plot shows that bothmale and female recruiters gave more favorable overall interview assess-ments to applicants of the opposite sex; however, this effect was far morepronounced for male recruiters than for female recruiters. Although this pat-tern was consistent with Hypothesis 3a, a post hoc comparison of means indi-cated that female recruiters did not rate male applicants significantly morefavorably than female applicants.

Race similarity affected both overall interview assessments and offerdecisions, although the latter relationship was only of marginal significance.The plots in Figure 3 show that Caucasian recruiters showed a strong favorit-ism for Caucasian applicants, whereas African American recruiters did notdistinguish between Caucasian and African American applicants. In short,there was no support for Hypothesis 1 with regard to age or sex, but there wassupport with regard to race for Caucasian recruiters.

As the offer decision criterion was dichotomous and the applicant assess-ments were nested within recruiters, structural equations modeling was inap-propriate for this data set (L. Williams, personal communication, November8, 2002). Therefore, tests for mediation were performed following the proce-dure presented by Baron and Kenny (1986) and by Kenny (1998). Specifi-cally, four steps are needed to establish mediation. Step 1: Show that the ini-tial variable is related to the outcome. Step 2: Show that the initial variable isrelated to the mediator. Step 3: Show that the mediator affects the outcomevariable, after controlling for the initial variables. Step 4: Determine whetherthe relationship between the initial variable and the outcome variablebecomes nonsignificant (full mediation) or just smaller but still statisticallysignificant (partial mediation) after controlling for the mediator. Becauseestablishing mediation requires that all four steps be met, mediational testswere only performed in those cases where Tables 3, 4, and 5 indicated signif-icant demographic similarity effects on both an outcome and on at least oneproposed mediator. Consequently, no further tests were performed for agesimilarity as Table 3 failed to provide support for the proposed direct effects.For sex similarity, no mediational tests relating to offer decisions were per-formed as Table 4 showed no significant direct effect between sex similarityand this outcome. Finally, for race similarity, I did not perform mediationaltests for the effects of perceived similarity or interpersonal attraction as Table5 showed that race similarity was not significantly related to either of thesecriteria.




The second and third set of hypotheses proposed that the impact of demo-graphic similarity on overall interview assessments and offer decisions wasmediated by perceived similarity and interpersonal attraction. In addition,overall interview assessment was expected to mediate the relationshipbetween demographic similarity and offer decisions. Table 6 shows that therelationship between race similarity and offer decision was completely medi-ated by overall interview assessments. Specifically, the relationship between


TABLE 3

Age Similarity Regressions

OverallPerceived Interpersonal Interview OfferSimilarity Attraction Assessment Decision

R2∆ F R2∆ F R2∆ F χ2

Step 1: Recruiter dummy variables .44 4.03** .33 2.51** .29 2.04** 61.02*Step 2: Resume quality .08 44.49** .09 39.62** .18 85.17** 8.46**Step 3: Applicant ageStep 3: Recruiter age .00 .54 .01 1.33 .01 1.42 1.32Step 4: Applicant age*Step 4: Recruiter age .00 1.16 .00 .00 .00 .06 .90Step 5: Applicant age squaredStep 5: Recruiter age squared .01 4.77* .00 .88 .01 2.30 .78

NOTE: The no. of dummy variables ranged from 47 to 49.*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. †p ≤ .10.

TABLE 4

Sex Similarity Regressions


R2∆ F R2∆ F R2∆ F χ2

Step 1: Recruiter dummy variables .44 4.03** .33 2.51** .29 2.04** 60.99*Step 2: Resume quality .08 44.49** .09 39.61** .18 85.17** 8.46**Step 3: Applicant sexStep 3: Recruiter sex .00 .29 .01 1.60 .00 .35 1.95Step 4: Applicant sex*Step 4: Recruiter sex .01 3.46† .01 4.87* .01 5.62** .09

NOTE: Sex was effects coded (–1/1) such that 1 = interactions with similar pairs and –1 = inter-actions with dissimilar pairs. The no. of dummy variables ranged from 47 to 49.*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. †p ≤ .10.



race similarity and offer decision was significant (p < .05), the relationshipsbetween race similarity and perceived attitudinal similarity and betweenperceived attitudinal similarity and offer decision were marginally signifi-cant (p < .10), and, after controlling for interview assessment, the relation-ship between race similarity and offer decision became nonsignificant. Thislent some limited support to Hypothesis 2b. As none of the other proposedmediators between race similarity and the outcomes were significant, therewas no support for Hypothesis 2a with regard to race.

Table 6 also demonstrates that the relationship between recruiter-applicantsex similarity and overall interview assessment was fully mediated by bothperceived similarity and interpersonal attraction and that the relationshipbetween sex similarity and interpersonal attraction was fully mediated byperceived similarity. Specifically, sex similarity (p < .05 in both cases) andperceived attitudinal similarity (p < .01 in both cases) were significantlyrelated to both interpersonal attraction and interview assessments, sex simi-larity was marginally (p < .10) related to perceived attitudinal similarity, and,after controlling for perceived attitudinal similarity, the relationshipsbetween sex similarity and both interpersonal attraction and overall inter-view assessments became nonsignificant. In addition, the results of the sexsimilarity mediational tests show that interpersonal attraction partially medi-ated the relationship between perceived similarity and overall interviewassessments, as evidenced by the fact that the relationships between per-ceived attitudinal similarity and overall interview assessments (p < .05), per-perceived similarity and interpersonal attraction (p < .01), and interpersonal


TABLE 5

Race Similarity Regressions


R2∆ F R2∆ F R2∆ F χ2

Step 1: Recruiter dummy variables .46 3.54** .37 2.41** .36 2.22** 51.96Step 2: Resume quality .07 30.67** .09 30.60** .15 60.31** 3.99Step 3: Applicant raceStep 3: Recruiter race .00 .90 .00 .11 .03 6.15** 8.32**Step 4: Applicant race*Step 4: Recruiter race .00 .38 .00 .48 .01 2.74† 4.58*

NOTE: Only pairs with Caucasian or African American applicants are included in these analy-ses. Race was effects coded (–1/1) such that 1 = interactions with similar pairs and –1 = interac-tions with dissimilar pairs. The no. of dummy variables ranged from 42 to 47.*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. †p ≤ .10.



attraction and overall interview assessments (p < .01) were all significant,and the relationship between perceived similarity and overall interviewassessments remained significant (p < .01) after controlling for the effects ofinterpersonal attraction.

The negative coefficients in the first two columns of Table 6 and the pat-terns depicted in Figure 2 suggest that the significant effects on the outcome


Sex Interactions for Perceived Similarity

3

3.05

3.1

3.15

3.2

3.25

3.3

3.35

3.4

Male Candidate Female Candidate

Per

ceiv

edS

imila

rity

Male Recruiter

Female Recruiter

Sex Interactions for Attraction

3.3

3.35

3.4

3.45

3.5

3.55

3.6

3.65

Male Candidate Female Candidate

Inte

rper

sona

lAttr

actio

n

Male Recruiter

Female Recruiter

Sex Interactions for Overall InterviewAssessments

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

Male Candidate Female CandidateOve

rall

Inte

rvie

wA

sses

smen

ts

Male Recruiter

Female Recruiter

Figure 2: Plots of Sex Interactions



were the result of sex dissimilarity (Hypothesis 3) rather than sex similarity(Hypothesis 2). An examination of Figure 2 and the separate coefficients formale and female recruiters in Table 6 indicates that female recruiters made nodistinction between male and female applicants with regards to any of theoutcomes or mediators, whereas male recruiters perceived female applicantsmore favorably than male applicants on overall interview assessments andinterpersonal attraction. These findings were inconsistent with the thirdhypothesis, which proposed that female recruiters would show a preferencetoward male applicants.


Race Interaction for Overall Interview Assessments

2.52.62.72.82.9

33.13.23.33.4

CaucasianCandidate

African-AmercianCandidate

Ove

rall

In

terv

iew

Ass

essm

ents

CaucasianRecruiter

African-AmericanRecruiter

Race Interaction for Offer Decision

00.020.040.060.080.1

0.120.140.160.18

CaucasianCandidate

African-AmercianCandidate

Pro

bab

ilit

y o

f O

ffer

CaucasianRecruiter

African-AmericanRecruiter

Figure 3: Plots of Race Interactions



614

TA

BL

E 6

Med

iati

onal

Tes

tsa

Reg

ress

ion

Coe

ffici

ents

Out

com

eO

utco

me

Reg

ress

edR

egre

ssed

Out

com

eM

edia

tor

on M

edia

tor,

on I

niti

alR

egre

ssed

Coe

ffici

ents

Coe

ffici

ents

Reg

ress

edC

oeffi

cien

tsC

oeffi

cien

tsC

ontr

olli

ngC

oeffi

cien

tsC

oeffi

cien

tVa

riab

le,

Coe

ffici

ents

Coe

ffici

ents

on I

niti

alfo

r M

ale

for

Fem

ale

on I

niti

alfo

r M

ale

for

Fem

ale

for

Init

ial

for

Mal

efo

r Fe

mal

eC

ontr

olli

ngFo

r M

ale

For

Fem

ale

Rel

atio

nshi

p Te

sted

Vari

able

cR

ecru

iter

sR

ecru

iter

sVa

riab

lec

Rec

ruit

ers

Rec

ruit

ers

Vari

able

cR

ecru

iter

sR

ecru

iter

sfo

r M

edia

torc

Rec

ruit

ers

Rec

ruit

ers

Rac

e Si

mila

rity

Mod

elR

ace

sim

ilari

ty→

inte

rvie

was

sess

men

t→of

fer

deci

sion

b4.

05*

.11†

1.14

†4.

26Se

x Si

mila

rity

Mod

elSe

x si

mila

rity

→pe

rcei

ved

sim

ilari

ty→

attr

actio

n–.

12*

–.16

*–.

05–.

09†

–.10

–.08

.77*

*.7

7**

.76*

*–.

05–.

09†

.02

Sex

sim

ilari

ty→

perc

eive

dsi

mila

rity

→in

terv

iew

ass

essm

ent

–.13

*–.

14*

–.11

–.09

†–.

10–.

08.6

7**

.61*

*.7

1**

–.06

–.08

.05

Sex

sim

ilari

ty→

attr

actio

n→

inte

rvie

w a

sses

smen

t–1

3*–.

16–.

05–1

2*–.

14–.

11.6

5**

.56*

*.7

9**

–.05

–.04

–.08

Perc

eive

d si

mila

rity

→at

trac

tion

→in

terv

iew

ass

essm

ent

.68*

.78*

*.4

3**

.34*

*

a. T

he c

ontr

ol v

aria

bles

wer

e in

clud

ed in

thes

e an

alys

es; h

owev

er, f

or e

ase

of p

rese

ntat

ion,

onl

y re

latio

nshi

ps o

f th

eore

tical

inte

rest

are

dis

play

ed.

b. B

ecau

se lo

gist

ic r

egre

ssio

n w

as u

sed

for

the

offe

r de

cisi

on v

aria

ble,

all

of th

e co

effi

cien

ts p

rese

nted

in th

is r

ow a

re u

nsta

ndar

dize

d.c.

Mal

e an

d fe

mal

e re

crui

ters

*p≤

.05.

**p

≤.0

1. †

p≤

.10.



DISCUSSION

To summarize the results of this study, recruiter-applicant race similarityhad significant direct effects on overall interview assessments and final offerdecisions, and recruiter-applicant sex dissimilarity had a significant directeffect on overall interview assessments. Conversely, age similarity was notrelated to either criterion. In addition, there was some evidence that the pro-posed mediators intervened in these relationships. The relationship betweenrace similarity and offer decision was completely mediated by overall inter-view assessments; the relationship between sex dissimilarity and overallinterview assessments was fully mediated by perceived similarity and inter-personal attraction; the relationship between sex dissimilarity and interper-sonal attraction was fully mediated by perceived attitudinal similarity; andthe relationship between perceived similarity and overall interview assess-ments was partially mediated by interpersonal attraction. However, thesefindings do not lend support to the notion that similarity-attraction underliesthe relationship between demographic similarity and selection outcomes.

CONTRIBUTIONS

This study addressed a number of limitations of prior research on rela-tional demography. As very few applied studies have examined the impact ofrelational demography on applicant selection, this study filled an empiricalgap in the literature. Although some prior selection studies have consideredeither one or two measures of demographic similarity, the current studyincluded indices of relational age, race, and sex. Some authors (Graves &Powell, 1996) have questioned whether findings relating to interview out-comes apply to job-offer decisions. Because the present study included bothoverall interview assessments and subsequent offer decisions, it addressedthis concern.

A number of researchers have suggested that the relationship betweendemographic similarity and work outcomes is the result of the similarity-attraction process and the self-continuity drive proposed by SIT (Jacksonet al., 1991; Lawrence, 1997; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). This study contributedto the literature by testing whether the linkages proposed in Byrne’s (1971)similarity-attraction model mediated the impact of demographic similarityon selection outcomes. However, the findings suggest that similarity-attraction does not explain the relationship between demographic similarityand selection outcomes.




EXPLANATION OF FINDINGS

Harrison et al.’s (1998) findings suggested that in the context of inter-views, where the recruiter has had little opportunity to assess similarity to theapplicant on deep-level traits, categorizations based on surface-level traitsare more meaningful. This study provides evidence that applicants who areracially similar to recruiters receive more favorable interview assessmentsand are more likely to receive subsequent offers than are applicants who areracially dissimilar. That recruiter-applicant race similarity yielded resultsthat were more congruent with the first hypothesis than did age or sex simi-larity and is consistent with the evidence that our preference for similar oth-ers may be the result of having had limited exposure to dissimilar others(Ravenson, 1989). Through family and other social experiences, recruitershave presumably had greater exposure to others from different sex and agecategories. In contrast, their interactions with others of different races mayhave been more limited, making race similarity a more salient social categorywith which to identify (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Fur-thermore, that Caucasians demonstrated a stronger homophily bias than didAfrican Americans is consistent with the literature on the self-enhancementdrive. For example, Gaertner and Dovidio (2000) note that as high statusgroup members seek to maintain their status, members of these groups showa greater tendency to overvalue the in-group than do members of low statusgroups.

Another possible explanation for the small or nonsignificant age and sexeffects may reflect the types of jobs for which the applicants were interview-ing. That is, several researchers (Goldberg et al., 2001; Heilman, 1983; Perry& Finkelstein, 1999) have suggested that jobs are age-typed and gender-typed and that these age- and gender-types dictate the extent to which an indi-vidual may be seen as a good match for a particular job. Thus, fit with the jobtype may have overshadowed fit with the recruiter’s characteristics. To testthe effect of job type, I created a five-category variable (information or com-puter systems, finance or accounting, sales or marketing, management, andengineering) based on the jobs that the recruiters indicated they were seekingto fill, and I reran the analyses with job category as a control variable. How-ever, the beta for this variable was 0 in all cases. Therefore, job type did notappear to impact the findings of this study.

It is also worth noting that overall interview impressions fully mediatedthe relationship between race similarity and offer decision. Despite the abun-dance of support for Fishbein and Azjen’s (1975) theory of reasoned actionin other contexts, empirical evidence linking recruiters’ impressions (e.g.,intentions) and offer decisions (e.g., behaviors) has been mixed. As with the




current study, Cable and Judge (1997) found a significant relationshipbetween recruiters’ postinterview impressions and subsequent offer deci-sions. In contrast, Powell and Goulet (1996) found no evidence of such arelationship. Perhaps labor market factors play a role in the relationshipbetween recruiters’ assessments and job offers. That is, it would be muchmore difficult to find an effect during periods of high unemployment becausethe base rate of offer decisions is lower. That the data in the Powell andGoulet study were collected between 1990 and 1991 (G. Powell, personalcommunication, December, 2000), during the height of a recession, whereasdata for the current study and that of Cable and Judge (1997; D. M. Cable,personal communication, December, 2000) were collected in the mid-1990s,when the economy was considerably stronger, lends some support to the ideathat labor market conditions may affect the nature of the relationshipbetween recruiters’ impressions and final offer decisions.

This study heeded Lawrence’s (1997) call to open the black box of organi-zational demography to explore how and why demography affects work out-comes. Although several researchers have suggested that the similarity-attraction paradigm underlies the importance of demographic similarity onorganizational criteria (Jackson et al., 1991; Tsui et al., 1992; Tsui &O’Reilly, 1989), I did not find evidence of such relationships. For race, noneof the proposed similarity-attraction mediational effects was significant.That neither attitudinal similarity nor interpersonal attraction explained therace similarity effects suggests that other processes may have been operat-ing. Given the ample research suggesting that people have negative reactionsto African American applicants seeking white-collar jobs (cf. Stewart &Perlow, 2001), racial prejudice may be a reasonable explanation.

I also failed to find gender similarity effects. Based on the abundance oftheoretical and empirical research (Ellemers et al., 1993; Ely, 1994, 1995;Graves & Powell, 1995; Gutek, 1985; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1991) that sug-gests that females seek to identify with males to maintain a positive identity, Iposited that female recruiters would favor male applicants but that malerecruiters would show no preference. In contrast, in the current study,whereas female recruiters exhibited no preference toward applicants ofeither sex, male recruiters evaluated female applicants higher than maleapplicants on interpersonal attraction and overall interview assessments.This contradicts the research on self-enhancement, which strongly suggeststhat men would likely distance themselves from women to maintain theirhigher status (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Note, however, that male recruit-ers did not perceive either sex as more attitudinally similar to themselves. Ifperceived attitudinal similarity does not explain male recruiters’ favorable




assessments of female applicants’ interpersonal attractiveness and overallinterviewing effectiveness, then what does?

Although there is ample literature linking target similarity to oneself toattraction (Byrne & Blalock, 1963; Byrne & Clore, 1970; Griffitt, 1969;Newcomb, 1961), other researchers (Dalessio & Imada, 1984; LaPrelle,Insko, Cooksey, & Graetz, 1993) contend that support for the similarity-attraction paradigm may be confounded with an ideal-attraction relationshipbecause “for most people, their ideals are reasonably similar to their percep-tions of themselves” (Wetzel & Insko, 1984, p. 254). Furthermore, there isevidence that the prototype of an ideal male target is different than that of anideal female target. Specifically, Freeman (1987) and Konrad and Cannings(1997) note that males are idealized as success objects, whereas females areidealized as sex objects. Consistent with this view, Sprecher (1989) foundthat male participants considered physical attractiveness when assessingtheir initial attraction to a female target, but female participants focused onearnings potential when assessing their initial attraction to a male target. Hisfindings suggest that sex may signal which target attributes to emphasize inevaluating another individual. To examine this possibility, using a 5-point,single-item measure (“the applicant had a pleasant physical appearance”), Iperformed post hoc analyses for the male recruiter subsample to determinewhether applicants’ appearance mediated the relationships betweenapplicant sex and interpersonal attraction and overall interview assessments.

These results, which are presented in Table 7, provide support for partialmediation. Consistent with Dalessio and Imada’s (1984) findings, the analy-ses reported here suggest that applicant-ideal matches may be more impor-tant to recruiters than are applicant-self matches. Moreover, these findingsindicate that applicant sex may direct recruiters to attend to those characteris-tics that are central to the ideal gender prototype for that applicant. This inter-vening effect bridges the research that has shown that female stimuli aremore apt to invoke assessments of attractiveness than are male stimuli(Larose, Tracy, & McKelvie, 1994) with the ample evidence that physicalattractiveness results in favorable outcomes (Drogosz & Levy, 1996;Marlowe, Schneider, & Nelson, 1996).

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONSFOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study addressed some of the gaps in the literature; however, it is notwithout limitations. The demographic variables considered in the presentstudy were not evenly distributed. Although applicants were of a variety ofracial backgrounds, all recruiters (the respondents for this investigation)




were either White or African American. Riordan and Shore (1997) found thatrace-ethnic similarity to work group members had a stronger impact for His-panics than for Caucasians or African Americans. Likewise, Wiersema andBird’s (1993) results suggest that demographic similarity may be moremeaningful to Asians than it is to other race-ethnic groups that are more com-monly studied in U.S. samples. In a similar vein, although this sampleincluded applicants in their 40s and 50s, in general, applicants were rela-tively young. The lack of significant direct age similarity effects and medi-ated race similarity effects may have been the result of range restriction.Future researchers may want to replicate the present study with groups thathave wider demographic distributions.

One of the most interesting results of this study had to do with the im-pact of sex similarity. Of the two competing hypotheses proposed for theimpact of sex similarity, the results appear to provide better support for thedissimilarity-attraction perspective. However, whereas female recruiterswere expected to show favoritism toward male applicants, I found that malerecruiters showed preference toward female applicants and found no evi-dence of an applicant sex effect for female recruiters. Further, the unexpectedmediating effect of appearance on the sex dissimilarity-attraction relation-ship suggests that for male recruiters, applicant sex may be a precursor todefining the ideal applicant. Future researchers should consider examiningwhether the factors associated with the ideal male prototype, such as earnings


TABLE 7

Post Hoc Mediational Tests for Male Recruitersa

Regression Coefficients

Outcome OutcomeOutcome Regressed RegressedRegressed Mediator on Mediator, on Initialon Initial Regressed on Controlling for Variable, Controlling

Relationship Tested Variable Initial Variable Initial Variable for Mediator

Sex Similarity ModelSex similarity →physical appearance →attraction –.16* .12† .45** .11†

Sex similarity →physical appearance →interview assessment –.13* .12† .20** .11†

a. The control variables were included in these analyses; however, for ease of presentation, onlyrelationships of theoretical interest are displayed.*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. †p ≤ .10.



potential, mediate the relationship between applicant sex and work outcomesin the same manner that ideal female prototypic characteristics did in thepresent study.

Further research is needed to determine whether individual differences inrecruiters may affect the findings. Although I did not observe differencesbased on the recruiters’ functional background (human resources vs. thedepartment for which applicants were being interviewed), more research isneeded to determine whether other recruiter difference variables, such astraining to avoid biases, might affect the relationships tested in this study.Likewise, although inclusion of the final offer outcome was one of the impor-tant contributions of this study, further work is needed to determine whetherrecruiters’ role in the hiring process affects the relationship between similar-ity and final offer decisions.

Although race similarity predicted selection outcomes, the other demo-graphic similarity measures did not. Future researchers should continue tosearch for other processes that may further open Lawrence’s (1997) blackbox of organizational demography. However, given that demographic simi-larity effect sizes are generally of small to moderate magnitude, exploringmoderating effects may prove more fruitful than exploring mediating effects.For example, Goldberg et al.’s (2003) recent work on the moderating effectsof self-continuity and self-enhancement drives suggests some conditionsunder which similarity may be more or less important in predicting workgroup outcomes. Further study is warranted to determine whether thesemotives may operate in a similar fashion in the context of selection. Like-wise, whereas Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selection-attrition frameworksuggests that most recruiters will seek applicants who are similar to othermembers (including the recruiter) of the organization, affirmative actionemployers may be looking to hire applicants who are demographically dis-similar to other members of the organization. Assessing the extent to whichrecruiters may be seeking employees with particular demographic character-istics and how this bias affects the relationship between demography andselection would be an important contribution to the literature.

REFERENCES

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Man-agement Review, 14, 20-39.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychologi-cal research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.




Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Byrne, D. E., & Blalock, B. (1963). Similarity and assumed similarity of attitudes between hus-

bands and wives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 636-640.Byrne, D. E., & Clore, G. L. (1970). A reinforcement model of evaluative responses. Personal-

ity: An International Journal, 1, 103-128.Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person-organization fit and orga-

nizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546-561.Dalessio, A., & Imada, A. S. (1984). Relationships between interview selection decisions and

perceptions of applicant similarity to an ideal employee and self: A field study. Human Rela-tions, 37, 67-80.

Dipboye, R. (1992). Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

Drogosz, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1996). Another look at the effects of appearance, gender, and jobtype on performance-based decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 437-445.

Edwards, J. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and aproposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51-100.

Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group orindividual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 64, 766-778.

Ely, R. J. (1994). Organizational demographics and the dynamics of relationships among profes-sional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203-238.

Ely, R. J. (1995). The power of demography: Women’s social constructions of gender identityat work. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589-604.

Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowlands, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influenceand the performance evaluation process. Test of a model. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 58, 101-135.

Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction totheory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Freeman, H. R. (1987). Structure and content of gender stereotypes: Effects of somatic appear-ance and trait information. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 59-68.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common Ingroup IdentityModel. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Goldberg, C., Finkelstein, L., Perry, E., & Konrad, A. (in press). Job and industry fit: The effectsof age and gender on career progress outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior.

Goldberg, C., Riordan, C., & Schaffer, B. (2003, August). Missing pieces in Social Identity The-ory: Continuity and status as moderators of similarity. Paper presented at the Academy ofManagement Best Paper Proceedings, Seattle, WA.

Gordon, R. A., Rozelle, R. M., & Baxter, J. C. (1988). The effect of applicant age, job level, andaccountability on the evaluation of job applicants. Organizational Behavior and DecisionProcesses, 41, 20-33.

Graves, L. M., & Powell, G. N. (1995). The effect of sex similarity on recruiters’ evaluations ofactual applicants: A test of the similarity-attraction paradigm. Personnel Psychology, 48, 85-98.

Graves, L. M., & Powell, G. N. (1996). Sex similarity, quality of the employment interview andrecruiters’ evaluation of actual applicants. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-chology, 69, 243-261.

Griffitt, W. (1969). Personality similarity and self-concept as determinants of interpersonalattraction. Journal of Social Psychology, 78, 137-146.

Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.




Harrison, D., Price, K., & Bell, M. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effectsof surface and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 41, 96-107.

Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, 5, 269-298.

Heilman, M. E., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1988). The vagaries of sex bias: Conditions reg-ulating the undervaluation, equivaluation, and overvaluation of female job applicants. Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 98-110.

Howard, J. L., & Ferris, G. R. (1996). The employment interview context: Social and situationalinfluences on interview decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 112-136.

Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Somedifferences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlatesof recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675-789.

Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). The elusive criterion of fit in human resources staffing deci-sions. Human Resource Planning, 15, 47-67.

Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 36, 80-105.

Kenny, D. A. (1998). Mediation. Retrieved August 7, 1998, from http://nw3.nai.net/~dakenny/kenny/html

Kinicki, A. J., & Lockwood, C. A. (1985). The interview process: An examination of factorsrecruiters use in evaluating job applicants. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 117-125.

Kirchmeyer, C. (2002). Change and stability in managers’ gender roles. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 87, 929-940.

Konrad, A. M., & Cannings, K. (1997). The effects of gender role congruence and statistical dis-crimination in managerial advancement. Human Relations, 50, 1305-1328.

Konrad, A. M., Corrigall, E., Lieb, P., & Ritchie, J. E. (2000). Sex differences in job attributepreferences among managers and business students. Group and Organization Management,25, 108-132.

Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Jr., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similaritiesin job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593-641.

Lagace, R. R. (1990). Leader-member exchange: Antecedents and consequences of the cadreand hired hand. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 10, 11-19.

LaPrelle, J., Insko, C. A., Cooksey, L., & Graetz, K. (1993). Self similarity, ideal similarity, andundesired self similarity as indicators of attraction. Representative Research in Social Psy-chology, 19, 65-74.

Larose, H., Tracy, J., & McKelvie, S. (1994). Effects of gender on the physical attractiveness ste-reotype. Journal of Psychology, 127, 677-691.

Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8,1-22.

Lin, T. R., Dobbins, G. H., & Farh, J. L. (1992). A field study of race and age similarity effects oninterview ratings in conventional and situational interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology,77, 363-371.

Marlowe, C. M., Schneider, S. L., & Nelson, C. E. (1996). Gender and attractiveness biases inhiring decisions: Are more experienced managers less biased? Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 81, 11-21.

Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Milliken, F., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the effects of

diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402-433.Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.




O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. (1989). Work group demography, social integra-tion, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21-37.

Pelled, L. (1997). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An interveningprocess theory. Organization Science, 7, 615-631.

Perry, E. L., & Finkelstein, L. M. (1999). Toward a broader view of age discrimination inemployment-related decisions: A joint consideration of organizational factors and cognitiveprocesses. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 21-49.

Powell, G. N., & Goulet, L. R. (1996). Recruiters’ and applicants’ reactions to campus inter-views and employment decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1619-1640.

Prewett-Livingston, A., Field, H., Veres, J., & Lewis, P. (1996). Effects of race on interview rat-ings in a situational panel interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 178-186.

Rand, T. M., & Wexley, K. N. (1975). Demonstration of the effect, “similar to me,” in simulatedemployment interviews. Psychological Reports, 36, 535-544.

Ravenson, T. A. (1989). Compassionate stereotyping of elderly patients by physicians: Revisingthe social contact hypothesis. Psychology and Aging, 4, 230-234.

Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: Anempirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 82, 342-358.

Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and majority grouprelations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 1-24.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.Sprecher, S. (1989). The importance to males and females of physical attractiveness, earning

potential, and expressiveness in initial attraction. Sex Roles, 21, 591-607.Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 261-302.Stewart, L. D., & Perlow, R. (2001). Applicant race, job status, and racial attitude as predictors of

employment discrimination. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 259-275.Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel

& W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography andorganizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.

Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance ofrelational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32,402-423.

Tsui, A. S., Xin, K. R., & Egan, T. D. (1995). Relational demography: The missing link in verti-cal dyad linkage. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams:Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 97-129). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psy-chology with reference to individualism, interactionism, and social influence. British Jour-nal of Social Psychology, 25, 237-252.

Wade, K. J., & Kinicki, A. J. (1997). Subjective applicant qualifications and interpersonal attrac-tion as mediators within a process model of interview selection decisions. Journal of Voca-tional Behavior, 50, 23-40.

Wetzel, C. G., & Insko, C. A. (1984). The similarity-attraction relationship: Is there an ideal one?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 253-276.




Wiersema, M. F., & Bird, A. (1993). Organizational demography in Japanese firms: Group het-erogeneity, individual dissimilarity, and top management team turnover. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 36, 996-1025.

Wiley, M. G., & Eskilson, A. (1985). Speech style, gender stereotypes, and corporate success:What if women talked more like men? Sex Roles, 12, 993-1007.

Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects ofage and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal,32, 353-376.

Caren B. Goldberg, Ph.D., is an associate professor of human resources at GeorgeWashington University. Her research interests include diversity and sexual harassment.She is an associate editor at Group and Organization Management, and is on the editorialboards of the Journal of Management, and Human Resource Management Journal.




Group & Organization Management-2005-Goldberg-597-624.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Group & Organization Management-2005-Goldberg-597-624.pdf