UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF APPLICANT ATTIRE ON INTERVIEWER PERCEPTIONS

Cassandra Janelle Barger*

[December 2009]

*Cassandra Barger is an undergraduate student in the College of Business Administration Honors Program at California State University, Long Beach, CA 90840. This manuscript serves to fulfill her Honors Thesis requirement. Address correspondence to Cassandra Barger: Cassandra_barger@yahoo.com.

The Impact of Attire

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Pamela Miles Homer for all of her assistance, guidance, and encouragement during the process of writing this thesis. I am extremely grateful for her devotion of so much time and effort. The wealth of knowledge and expertise she shared with me allowed for this research study to be completed. I am also thankful to the professors whom willingly allowed me to take time out of their class schedule to use their students as study subjects. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support throughout this process. Their encouragement and help made it possible for me to continue with my education and to succeed in the CBA Honors Program. I would not have been able to complete this thesis without their continuous support, willingness to give their input on my research, and allowing me to take the time I needed away from other obligations to complete my thesis. Their support has not been unnoticed.

The Impact of Attire

UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF APPLICANT ATTIRE ON INTERVIEWER PERCEPTIONS ABSTRACT This study focuses on the effects of an applicants attire worn during a job interview on interviewer perceptions and the likelihood of being offered a position. This study manipulates attire and job level to determine if dress matters and to further test if the fit between ones attire and the job being sought impacts an employers evaluation. Findings support past research that attire impacts impression formation, specifically interviewer evaluations. Interestingly, data suggest that attire acts as both a central and peripheral cue: attire impacts both attractiveness and competence candidate beliefs. Tests of an attire/job level match-up are mixed and predicted fashion consciousness effects fail to emerge. Theoretical and managerial implications are offered.

The Impact of Attire

INTRODUCTION A first impression is most simply defined as a consideration or judgment (Merriam-Webster). When a person meets someone for the first time, they automatically form an impression of the person. This impression is formed from the way the new person is composed, the way the person is dressed (e.g., Forsyth, Drake, and Cox, 1985), or even from how the person shakes hands upon introduction (Chaplin, Phillips, Brown, Clanton, and Stein, 2000). Considerable research has examined the formation of first impressions across a variety of settings, including political candidate impressions in a campaign (Abelson, Kinder, Peters, Fiske, 1982; Wyer, Budesheim, Shavitt, Riggle, Melton, and Kukinski, 1991), product impressions (Bergeron, Fallu, and Roy, 2008; Fennis and Th H Pruyn, 2007), personal greetings (Chaplin et al., 2000), and job applicant impressions (Forsythe, Drake, Cox, 1985; Liden and Parsons, 1986). In many situations (e.g., when interviewing for a job), such first impressions are critical for goal achievement (e.g., getting hired). The interview process is important to both the interviewer and the applicant. The interviewer is looking for someone to fill an open position and be an asset to the company, and the applicant is hoping to find a position in a company where he/she will succeed that is also a "good fit" for him/her. Although a job interview has long been the main way of obtaining a job, people still struggle to understand how to be successful during one. In the current economic climate (recession) and tight job market, the interview process and making a good first impression on the interviewer is especially important. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of unemployed persons increased to 15.4 million and the overall unemployment rate rose to 10.0 percent (November 2009). Since the current recession began (December 2007), the number of unemployed persons has risen by 7.9 million, and the unemployment rate for adult men is 10.5 percent versus 7.9 percent for adult women.

The Impact of Attire

As noted above, first impressions are critical during the interview process and a variety of factors may influence impression formation, including one's dress. However, to my knowledge, there is little empirical evidence (e.g., Forsythe, Drake, and Cox, 1985) that studies the relationship between job applicant dress/attire and interviewer evaluations. In addition, what is appropriate to wear to an interview is likely dependent on the type of job under consideration. This study manipulates attire and job level to determine if dress matters and to further test if the fit between ones attire and the job being sought impacts an employers evaluation. In addition, I explore the moderating effects of an individual difference characteristic, fashion-consciousness. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE The literature in human impression formation shows that the first impressions people make about products, political candidates, and the people around them can be based on many things. People form first impressions based on the way a person is speaking and his/her mannerisms during a political campaign (Wyer et al., 1991), on a political candidate's emotional responses (Abelson, Kinder, Peters, and Fiske, 1982), on how people greet each other during a first meeting (Chaplin, Phillips, Brown, Clanton, and Stein, 2000), or even based on how people present themselves through the products they own (Fennis and Pruyn, 2007). Some of the factors tested in past studies of impression formation are attractiveness (Kahle and Homer, 1985), dress (Forsyth, Drake, and Cox, 1985), speech (Wyer et al., 1991), and personal greetings (Chaplin et al., 2000). For example, the way a person shakes hands (i.e., the firmness of a handshake, the position of a persons hand while participating in a handshake, the length of a handshake) can indicate what type of person he/she is (Chaplin et al., 2000). The literature also includes studies of how first impressions are used to form judgments about products, companies, and other non-human objects (e.g., Bergeron, Fallu, and Roy, 2008; Fennis and Pruyn, 2007). For example, the first impression of a product or a company can be impacted

The Impact of Attire

by the way a product is presented or viewed by a consumer. That is, when a consumer first encounters a new product, he/she bases their first impression on the information that is available: e.g., how the product is packaged, the price of the product, or even by the name of the product manufacturer. Similarly, when new customers enter a company building or a retail store, they form impressions based on atmosphere, service, personnel, product assortment, and other available information cues. A job interview is much like the above situations: the applicant tries to convey an appropriate impression in hopes of getting an offer. The literature confirms that clothing impacts person perception (e.g., Connor, Nagasawa, and Peters, 1975). In a business context, Forsythe et al. (1985) show that the masculinity of a female applicant's dress influences hiring decisions. Recently, Bergeron, Fallu, and Roy (2008) show that if a sales associate is knowledgeable about the products being offered, is dressed in appropriate attire for the environment, and is open and friendly with the client, the client is more inclined to make a purchase. If the sales associate lacks any of these important first impression criteria, the clients interest in purchasing declines based upon what is lacking. The current study expands on this line of thinking, by examining the impact of an applicant's dress on the potential employer's evaluation. Signaling theory has been adapted to explain how informational cues are used to formulate inferences in attitude formation (Chaplin et al., 2000; Liden and Persons, 1986): i.e. how information cues (e.g., ad size) act as "signals" of other characteristics (e.g., perceived quality; cf. Homer, 1995). Research focuses on what elements of a signal or surrounding community keep it reliable and how the signal is related to the quality it represents. For example, if a clerk sees a person walk into a store and notices that the person is wearing baggy clothes, has tattoos and random piercings, starts looking around for people observing him, the clerk may think that the person is going to steal something. That is, "signals" given off by the individual's appearance

The Impact of Attire

and behavior may influence the clerk's judgments and inferences. Similar types of signals can also influence how a job applicant views the company he/she is interviewing for. For example, newly graduated college applicants may base how good a company is to work for on "signals" derived from the interviewers questions and demeanor during an interview (Liden and Persons, 1986). Literatures in many fields explore a variety of signals used by individuals to form conclusions about objects, companies, and other people. These include studies on warranties (Boulding and Kirmani, 1993), ad repetition (Kirmani 1997), and job hiring (Rynes, Bretz, and Gerhart, 1991). Boulding and Kirmani (1993) provide empirical evidence that consumers are more likely to react to products with better warranties more favorably than to products with less of a warranty or no warranty at all. Kirmani (1997) demonstrates that advertising repetition may be used as a signal of quality, and that the quality inference is different from the traditional information processing effect of repetition on persuasion. Results are consistent with the signaling theory notion that increasing levels of repetition indicate a trustworthy manufacturer who is confident of the products quality and who exerts effort in the advertising. A signaling perspective has also been applied to explain the hiring likelihood of an applicant. Rynes, Bretz, and Gerhart (1991) propose that because job choice takes place under imperfect information, recruitment experiences frequently serve as signals of unobservable organizational characteristics. The interpreted recruitment experiences, e.g., recruiter competence, sex composition of interview panels, and recruitment delays, are symbolic of broader organizational characteristics. The authors also reveal some contingency variables associated with variations in signaling strength: e.g., prior knowledge of the company, functional area of the recruiter. The above arguments and past research suggest that signals are used by people to make decisions about products or other persons. Thus:

The Impact of Attire

H1: The attire worn by an applicant affects the interviewer's overall evaluation and the likelihood of being offered a position. Inferences have a major impact on how people make decisions and view people, products, and other objects. Inferences reflect the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises. Using a product or hearing about a product (e.g., from advertising, promotion, or word-of-mouth (WOM) communication) provides information about some properties (e.g., attributes, benefits), but the remaining properties if they are important must be inferred by going beyond the information given (Kardes, Posavac, and Cronley, 2004). Inference formation involves the generation of if-then linkages between information (e.g., cues, heuristics, arguments, knowledge) and conclusions (Kardes, 1993; Kruglanski and Webster, 1996). There are two basic types of inference processes. The first one is induction, which involves generalizing from specific information to general conclusions. The second one is deduction, whereby specific conclusions are construed from general principles or assumptions (Beike and Sherman, 1994; Maass, Colombo, Sherman, Colombo, 2001). Inductive inferences are formed when consumers use specific attributes, brand names, or other cues to draw general conclusions about the likely benefits of using various products or when people use specific characteristics and other cues to draw impressions. Deduction inferences are formed when general premises or arguments are used to draw specific conclusions (Kardes, Posavac, and Cronley, 2004). Inductive inferences seem most relevant to the current study: e.g., when an interviewer uses the attire worn by the applicant to make overall summary-type decisions about the applicant (as predicted in H1). Deduction inferences are relevant if the interviewer infers specific characteristics (e.g., competence) from his/her overall general impressions.

The Impact of Attire

Memory accessibility of relevant information is a key moderator of consumers inferences (Dick, Chakravarti, and Biehal, 1990). In addition, while consumers may notice missing information in certain situations, they may not form inferences about that missing information unless it is needed in the decision process. Ross and Creyer (1992) show that people do not discount their inferred value when there is no variation in other-brand information, even when there is high same-brand variation. The authors also demonstrate that when there is variation in other-brand information, people discount the inferred value as the variation in same-brand information increases. In the context of a job interview, this suggests that an interviewer may discount missing information when conducting an interview if he/she feels that it is not important to the interview process or to job performance. In addition, the interviewer may infer information about the applicant from appearance-related cues (e.g., attire), and he/she will not discount the value of the inferred information unless given a reason to do so. Such information may serve to distinguish the applicant from other applicants in a negative or positive way. The theoretical foundations of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) have been applied to explain a number of processes, including attitude and inference formation (e.g., how attire influences certain judgments). The ELM distinguishes the peripheral and central routes of persuasion. The central route of persuasion is that which likely occurred as a result of a persons careful and thoughtful consideration of the true merits of the information in support of advocacy (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). The peripheral route is that which more likely occurs as a result of some simple cue in the persuasion context (e.g., an attractive source) that induces change without scrutiny of the central merits of the issue-relevant information presented (Cacioppo, Kao, Petty, and Rodriguez, 1986). The activation of persuasion depends on the elaboration likelihood of the situation. Past researchers explore the relationship between attractiveness and personal character judgments, including likability (Kahle and Homer, 1985), competence (Helimann, 2007;

The Impact of Attire

Sandberg and Pinnington, 2009), and intelligence/cognitive ability (Chunha and Heckman, 2008). Attractiveness is often regarded as a peripheral cue, but evidence shows that it can be processed as a central cue under particular conditions (cf. Kamins, Assael, and Graham, 1990). Similarly, I test if attire leads to judgments of attractiveness and/or other more job-related characteristics (e.g., competence). Sheldon (2007) shows that an attractive person is perceived as being smarter or more compatible for a position. To my knowledge, however, no research directly tests whether attire is processed as a peripheral or central cue in a job interview setting. If attire impacts judgments about job performance criteria (e.g., qualifications, competence), it suggests central processing. On the other hand, if attire impacts only judgments of physical attractiveness, peripheral processing is likely. Both types of responses are measured here. Overall, I propose that attire is an information cue that influences judgments about a job applicant. Specifically: H2A: Attire influences judgments about a job applicant's attractiveness. H2B: Attire influences judgments about a job applicant's competence. H2C: An applicant is judged as more competent when she/he wears a standard business suit or custom-made outfit versus casual attire. Schema refers to an underlying organizational pattern or structure, e.g., Rubric, social schemas, stereotypes, social roles, and worldviews. Schema are patterns imposed on complex reality or experience that may assist in explaining behavior, may mediate perception, and may guide responses. Being schematic is associated with having a great deal of highly differentiated knowledge within some particular domain and being able to process that knowledge easily and efficiently (Bem, 1982). There are a variety of schema types that people use to process information and come to certain conclusions. For example, Batra and Homer (2004) show the

The Impact of Attire

important moderating role of product category schema to both the reinforcement of brand image beliefs and of their consequences for brand preference. Gender can act as a simple processing schema: i.e., when gender is allowed to be salient, gendered responses are more likely to occur (e.g., Moore and Homer 2008; Palin, 2001). Lawyers' case arguments can influence juror processing schema that then impact conviction decisions (Pople, 1994). The literature includes tests of other types of processing schema including self schema and cognitive schema. Nobre and Pinto-Gouveia (2009) investigate the psychometric characteristics of measures to assess the activation of cognitive schemas in unsuccessful sexual events. Results show moderate to high correlations supporting the prediction that negative views about oneself as a sexual individual are related to the activation of negative self-schemas when facing unsuccessful sexual situations. The literature also identifies maladaptive schemas (Nordahl, Holthe, Haugum, 2005) and relational schemas (Teng and Ping, 2006). Lynch and Schuler's (1994) tests of spokesperson/product match-ups and related studies of product category schema congruity (e.g., Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989) are perhaps most relevant to my study that uses job schema to determine whether the applicant being interviewed fits (or "matches") the job. Literatures in multiple fields explore a variety of "match-ups" (or "fits") found to impact attitude formation and information processing. Most relevant, literature from the field of management focuses on leader-follower and manager-support match-ups, person-organization fit, and supervisor-subordinate fit. Early research of a leader-follower match-up (Nations Business, 1959) seeks to understand how personalities mesh or conflict in a business situation and to match varying personalities so they can work effectively together. Kristof-Brown, Jansen, and Colbert (2002) show that the impact of person-job (PJ), person-group (PG), and personorganization (PO) fits are used when people evaluate their work environments. Their results suggest that all three types of fit have independent and important effects on work satisfaction.

The Impact of Attire

10

Consistently, Lauver (2001) demonstrates that PJ and PO fits impact job satisfaction and intent to quit in an independent manner. Turban and Jones (1988) focus on supervisor-subordinate similarities, concluding that the quality and frequency of supervisor-subordinate interactions are important influences on subordinate performance. Verquer, Beehr, and Wagner (2003) take a measurement perspective, noting that use of an established measure of person-organization fit increases effect sizes. More recently, Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson (2005) find that PJ, PG, PO, and person-supervisor (PS) fits along with various aspects of the work environment influence individuals attitudes and behaviors. Cremer and Dijk (2008) show that having the right leader (one that "fits") over followers in a team influences how the team is run and whether or not it is successful. The match-up concept is also reviewed in other fields. Early research (Kanungo and Pang 1973) finds that consumer evaluations are favorable when there is a fittingness between the product and the model in the advertisement due to the existence of attitudinal and perceptual congruence. Other matchups in the literature include those among endorsers image, the product message, and the aspired-to self-image of the target audience (Kahle and Homer, 1985; Kamins 1990; Misra and Beatty 1990). Kahle and Homer (1985) propose that consumers are more apt to be attracted to and purchase those brands whose advertisements and brand image appeal match their perceived image of themselves. Misra and Beatty (1990) empirically test the match-up between brand and spokesperson finding that a match-up enhances recall, brand affect, and affect transfer. Till and Busler (1998) find similar results with respect to celebrities: i.e., that effective advertisements properly match a celebrity to the brands image. Lynch and Schuler (1994) utilize schema theory to suggest that a change in spokesperson and product schemas can result from the characteristics of the endorser and the attributes of the product matching-up. The authors argue that this occurs via the transfer of schema between the endorser and the product, consistent with

The Impact of Attire

11

the idea that the proper fit (match-up) creates informational references between the two. This is further evidence that congruency between product/brand image and the endorser can transfer desired meaning to a product. Other match-up studies explore potential qualifying effects. Friedman and Friedman (1979) show that the effectiveness of the spokesperson is dependent on the situation. Their findings suggest that celebrities should be used for social and/or psychological products; experts should be used for complex products with high financial, performance, and/or physical risk; and typicalconsumer endorsers should be used for products with little inherent risk. Consistently, Kamins (1990) demonstrates that the endorser attractiveness/product match-up operates specifically in situations regarded as attractiveness-related'. Recently, Biswas, Biswas, and Das (2006) find that for certain types of products (e.g., technology), celebrity endorsement is ineffective because consumers need expert opinions in these situations. The matching hypothesis and schema literature summarized above suggest that the job being applied for determines what type of attire should be worn to a job interview: i.e., attire should "fit" the job position (job schema). For example, if a person has average business skills and is applying for an entry-level position, a standard business suit is appropriate. Thus: H3: When an applicant wears attire that fits with the job position (job schema), they will be regarded more favorably. H3A: An applicant for an entry-level job who wears a standard business suit is more likely to receive a job offer and to be evaluated favorably (compared to casual or custom-made outfits; cell 2 > cell 1 and cell 3). H3B: An applicant for an upper-level job who wears a custom-made outfit is more likely to receive a job offer and to be evaluated favorably (compared to casual outfit or standard business suit; cell 6 > cell 4 and cell 5). [Insert Table 1 about here.]

The Impact of Attire

12

The Moderating Impact of Fashion-Consciousness Little attention has been dedicated to researching the affect of fashion consciousness on impression formation. One study that looks at fashion consciousness shows that the effect of fashion varies for men and women (Gould and Stern, 1989). Results reveal that women who are more fashion conscious care more about what they are wearing and what is worn by others and thus, they concentrate on outward appearances. On the other hand, a fashion conscious male worries about projecting how much of a male he is by what he is wearing. Males relate their fashion with self-identity and internalized maleness. The current study uses fashion consciousness as a covariate to test whether being more fashion conscious impacts an interviewer's responses. H4: Those who are more fashion conscious notice an individuals attire more than those with little interest in fashion. That heightened interest results in greater differences between judgments for casually dressed applicants and applicants dressed in business attire. METHODOLOGY Participants and Survey The sample consists of 215 undergraduate business administration students from California State University, Long Beach. The sample was 44.2% male and 55.8% female (0% decided not to answer). The study sessions were conducted in a classroom setting and subjects were randomly assigned to treatments. Subjects were told they were participating in a research study about job interviews. The introduction page instructs respondents that they will review a job description, applicants qualifications, and description of an applicants attire. It instructs them to have the mindset of the person conducting the interview and to only access the situation based on the information given for this job position and about this applicant. Then, each participant was asked to read a job description that included the experimental manipulations (described later), and the description of the applicant attire that included the experimental manipulations

The Impact of Attire

13

(described later). When all participants in the study had completed reading the above materials, they were given permission to continue answering the questionnaire. Manipulations Six different scenarios are created in the 2 (job level: entry/upper) x 3 (applicants attire: casual, standard business, custom business) between-subjects factorial design involving a hypothetical situation in which the subject makes a decision on whether to applicant is qualified for the position being applied for. The first manipulation is job level. In half of the surveys, the job is described as an uppermanagement position. Specifically, the description read: This position entails a great deal of responsibility in the areas of customer relations, business development, and product sales. The ideal candidate will be able to motivate employees and to lead business development. We are looking for someone to grow within our company. This position is associated with a person who has experience and is able to be in charge of a large number of employees and company responsibility. The other half of the surveys read a description of an entry-level position. This position is associated with someone with little or no experience who could only handle a smaller level of employees and company responsibility. This job is described as: We are currently seeking an entry-level Assistant Manager. This position entails responsibility in the areas of customer relations, business development, and product sales. The ideal candidate will be a motivated employee who contributes to business development. We are looking for someone to grow within our company. The second manipulation is applicant attire. One applicant description describes a person who attended the interview in business casual (khaki pants, dress shirt, leather loafers). The second applicant description describes a person who attended the interview in standard storebought suit (Stafford suit: jacket, pants, dress shirt, tie, dress shoes), and the third applicant description describes the applicant as attending the interview in a custom suit (Custom-made designer suit: jacket, pants, custom dress shirt, silk tie, dress shoes).

The Impact of Attire

14

All job descriptions include a brief company statement: "For more than 80 years, the Fruition Consulting Firm has been helping businesses become more successful. We've worked with more than 500,000 business owners in over 3,000 business categories. Our clients are in virtually every type of industry -- service, construction, retail, wholesale, restaurants and hospitality, transportation, manufacturing, and health care." Description layout, amount of information, and job attribute ordering remained constant across treatments. Measures After reading one scenario, respondents completed the self-paced questionnaire. [All construct scales are measured via 9-point scales unless indicated otherwise.] The first three questions assess the likelihood that an individual will hire/not hire the applicant in the scenario (would not hire/would definitely hire, would not consider/would likely consider, would surely not hire/would surely hire, =.88). Reliable scales are constructed for overall impressions of the job applicant (negative/positive, unfavorable/favorable, bad/good, =.97), and overall impressions of the qualifications of the job applicant (7 items, disagree/agree scales, has sufficient qualifications, enough prior work experience, sufficient education, sufficient skills, the right look (appearance), properly dressed, overly dressed, =.91). Descriptive statements about the job applicant (disagree/agree scales) are collapsed into four (summated and averaged) construct scales: competence (organized, reliable, confident, socially adept, motivated, competent, disciplined, =.94), hard-working (autonomous (independent), hard-working, strong leader, ready for a management position, intelligent, effective communicator, will be successful, =.94), business-like (likeable, pleasant person, attractive, =.88), and perceived business fit (qualifications fit the job description criteria, not qualified for this job and should acquire more experience, meets all the job description criteria, =.74).

The Impact of Attire

15

The next group of questions measures to what extent the candidates attire says something about the candidate. These items are collapsed into two (summated and averaged) general construct scales: perceived physical characteristics (not attractive/attractive, messy/neat, not socially adept/socially adept, low class/high class, unsophisticated/sophisticated, =.90) and perceived mental characteristics (unqualified/qualified, not intelligent/intelligent, not motivated/motivated, not confident/confident, not competent/competent, =.94). The following section assesses the individuals view on fashion. These items are reduced into two scales: the individuals attention to fashion (never pay attention/always pay attention, not informed/very informed, not interested/very interested, not aware/very aware, =.92) and the individuals state of fashion (messy/neat, low class/high class, not confident/confident, not socially adept/socially adept, unsophisticated/sophisticated, =.90). One other battery of questions yield two additional scales of fashion consciousness (agree/disagree scale): awareness of what others think of fashion (keep up on fashion trends, when shopping at the mall, first stop is the most fashionable store, follow advice in fashion magazines, know what celebrities are currently wearing, read fashion magazines often, =.92) and attention to fashion in his/her life (dress to impress, have a large selection of clothes in my wardrobe, make great efforts to look my best every day, think clothes are important, very styleconscious, =.84). The next group of items measure respondents' memory of the job position (agree/disagree scales; low level/high level, not managerial/managerial, requires little education/requires much education, not realistic/realistic, unprofessional/professional, =.85) and his/her ability to recall the applicant's attire/dress (casual/dressy, not well-groomed/well-groomed, not business attire/business attire, low quality clothes/high quality clothes, not appropriate for position/appropriate for position, =.90). Subjects were asked which job was described in

The Impact of Attire

16

the position description (entry-level, mid-management position, upper-management position, CEO level position). Lastly, subjects rated their interest in the experience (not involved/very involved, not interested/very interested, Spearman-Brown reliability coefficient=.88), and responded to basic demographic characteristic questions (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, country of birth, and academic major). [Note: Not all measured constructs described above are relevant to the hypotheses being tested here. Thus, some are not discussed further.] RESULTS Manipulation Checks and Covariates Of those who reviewed the upper management job description, 95% recalled that the position was a management level position, and 79.2% who reviewed the entry-level description correctly recalled that the job was an entry-level position (2(1)=111.97, p<.001). In addition, compared to the entry-level position, the upper-level job position was judged as more high level (F(1,191)=97.36, p<.001; MUL=7.44 versus MEL=5.18) and more "managerial" (F(1,191)=29.78, p<.001; MUL=7.89 versus MEL=6.67). The upper-management position is perceived to be more realistic (F(2,191)=22.74, p<.001; MUL=7.65 versus MEL=6.55) and professional compared to the entry-level position (F(2,191)=44.18, p<.001; MUL=8.06 versus MEL=6.78). The applicants wearing suits are rated as more "dressy" (F(2,191)=98.68, p<.001; MCASUAL=5.52 versus MSUIT=8.28 and MCUSTOM=8.22), appropriate for the position (F(2,191)=28.26, p<.001; MCASUAL=6.00 versus MSUIT=8.27 and MCUSTOM=7.45), wearing higher quality clothing (F(2,191)=51.49, p<.001; MCASUAL=5.87 versus MSUIT=7.81 and MCUSTOM=8.11), and wearing business attire (F(2,191)=74.55, p<.001; MCASUAL=5.82 versus MSUIT=8.59 and MCUSTOM=8.16) compared to those wearing the casual attire. However, the casually dressed applicants are judged as being slightly less well-groomed that the other applicants (F(2,191)=17.97, p<.001; MCASUAL=7.28 versus MSUIT=8.43 and MCUSTOM=8.27). In addition,

The Impact of Attire

17

while the two suits are rated as more appropriate for the position (F(2,191)=28.26, p<.001; MCASUAL=6.00 versus MSUIT=8.27 and MCUSTOM=7.45), the expected attire x job level interaction is not significant. Lastly, there are no main or interaction effects for subject involvement or interest in the study. Overall, the above results indicate that the job level manipulation is successful, that the casual clothing option varies from both suit options, and that the standard and business suits may be too similar (further discussion follows). [Insert Table 2 about here.] Hypothesis Tests In order to test H1, the effects of the experimental manipulations (i.e., attire and job level) on the primary dependent construct scales are analyzed via ANCOVA. [See Tables 3 and 4.] In order to account for preexisting interest in and knowledge of fashion, the fashion-consciousness scale (described above) is included as a covariate in all tests of H1-H3B. 1 [Table 5 presents ANOVA tests for comparison.]
[Insert Tables 3, 4, and 5 about here.]

The first hypothesis (H1) tests the effect of the attire worn by the applicant on the likelihood of being offered a position and overall attitude. Data show that the hypothesized attire main effect is significant (F(2,174)=5.99, p=.003) for intent. Consistent with H1, applicants wearing business (M=7.35) or custom (M=7.44) suits are more likely to be offered the position compared to the casually dressed applicant (M=6.91). Data also show that the hypothesized main effect is significant (F(2,174)=4.34, p=.014) for overall attitude. Consistent with H1, the overall attitude of the interviewer toward applicants wearing business (M=7.74) or custom (M=7.67) suits are more favorable compared to the casually dressed applicant (M=7.00).

Initial tests also include gender as a covariate. Gender has no meaningful effect on the F statistics, means, or conclusions and thus, I report the single covariate ANCOVAs.

The Impact of Attire

18

H2A-H2C. These hypotheses measure the effects of the variable (attire) on an interviewer's judgments of the applicant (attractiveness and competence). H2A tests the effect of the attire worn by the applicant on the applicant's perceived level of attractiveness. While the main effect for attire is insignificant (F(2,181)=0.53, ns), attire does interact with job level (F(2,181)=4.04, p=.02). That is, for the entry-level job position, applicants wearing high-end clothing are perceived to be less attractive (M=5.13) than applicants wearing less costly clothing (M=5.64 for casual and M=5.55 for the standard business suit). For the upper-level position, applicants are perceived to be more attractive when wearing a standard business suit (M=6.28) than applicants wearing clothing that is cheaper or more expensive (M=5.70 for casual and M=6.05 for custom suit). Not surprising, attire has a strong impact on competence judgments (F(2,181)=4.79, p=.009): casual attire (M=5.47) leads to lower perceptions of competence compared to business (M=6.51) and custom-made suits (M=6.64). In addition, the (insignificant) attire x job level interaction shows directional support for H2C (F(2,181)=2.03, p=.13): i.e., business (M=6.57) and custommade suits (M=6.60) generate higher perceptions regarding competence than casual attire (M=6.35). Overall, the strong effects for competence and the interaction effect identified for attractiveness suggest that attire shows both peripheral and central processing properties. H3-H3B. These hypotheses test attire/job level match-up effects, however, the data fail to support predictions: i.e., the attire x job level interaction is insignificant. Although a business suit is hypothesized as being the fit attire for an entry-level position, applicants wearing either the business suit (M=7.36) or the custom-made suit (M=7.58) are more likely to be hired (F(2,174)=0.79, ns) compared to the applicants wearing cheaper clothing (M=6.53 for casual). Also, for the upper management position, the custom-made suit is hypothesized as being the most fit attire for the position. Results show that, in terms of hiring likelihood, the custom

The Impact of Attire

19

made suit (M=7.35) and standard business suit (M=7.44) are comparable and greater relative to the casual clothing option (M=6.91). [As for the entry-level position, the means for the business suit and custom-made suit are not statistically different.] The data also does not support the match-up predictions for overall attitude towards the applicant. As predicted, attitudes towards upper-level applicants wearing a business suit (M=7.74) are more favorable (F(2,174)=0.21, ns) than attitudes towards applicants wearing casual attire (M=7.00), but contrary to predictions, attitudes towards the business suit candidate (M=7.74) are equivalent to the applicant wearing a custom-made suit (M=7.67). Also, for the entry-level position, the standard business suit attire is hypothesized to generate higher overall interviewer attitudes. The data show that interviewers' attitudes are equivalent towards an applicant wearing a custom-made suit (M=7.83) or a business suit (M=7.74), both of which are rated higher than the applicant wearing casual attire (M=7.09). [As noted in the previous Methodology section, these results suggest that the attire manipulation was weak.] H4. The final hypothesis (H4) measures the impact of fashion consciousness (FC) on interviewer inferences towards the applicant. For a more powerful test of H5, a median split variable is created for the FC characteristic. This is then included as a third fixed factor in a series of ANOVA analyses. The data show no main or interaction effects involving FC for all but one construct (attractiveness): all p values are insignificant for hiring intent, attitude, and competence beliefs. In addition, examination of cell means does not show greater variance between casual and business attire for high fashion-conscious individuals (see Table 6). One effect emerges for attractiveness, i.e., a main effect for FC (F(1,181)=4.47, p=.036). Overall, high FC individuals (M=6.01) find the applicant to be more attractive than low FC interviewers (M=5.44). These results suggest that more fashion conscious interviewers may view an applicant as more attractive, but that this individual difference trait does not affect other interviewer

The Impact of Attire

20

perceptions. [Note: Post hoc gender effect tests show no impact of gender on any of the dependent variables.] [Insert Table 6 about here.] Results Summary In summary, the data show strong support for H1 that an applicant wearing a custom-made or business suit to an interview is more likely to be offered the job. H2A focuses more on the perceived attractiveness of the applicant based on the attire worn. While there is no attire main effect for attractiveness, there is an important interaction between job level and attire. Not surprising, an applicant for an upper-level position wearing a suit is judged to be more attractive than an applicant wearing casual attire. However, contrary to expectations, an applicant for an entry-level position is judged to be more attractive when dressed in casual attire. For H2B, the data support that the competence of the applicant is judged based on his/her attire. Not only does the data show that the interviewer uses attire to make judgments regarding the applicants competence, but it also shows that the suit is perceived as a signal of more competence compared to casual attire. Results show that attire behaves as both a central cue, along with peripheral tendencies. No support emerges for the attire/job level match-up predicted in H3, H3A, and H3B. Not surprising, data confirm that a suit is favored over casual attire for jobs similar to those described in the stimulus materials. Lastly, effects related to the impact of fashion consciousness fail to emerge. The only finding is that overall, the applicant more is viewed as more attractive by high FC interviewers.

The Impact of Attire

21

DISCUSSION The intent of this study is to provide insight into understanding the relative importance of attire worn to a job interview on interviewer impressions, most notably on likelihood of receiving an offer, competence perceptions, and overall attitude toward the applicant. In addition, adapting a schematic framework, I examine an untested attire/job level match-up, test for peripheral and central processing effects, and evaluate whether attire acts as a signal of an applicant's competence and performance ability. As expected, attire has a significant impact on job offer likelihood and attitude towards the applicant (H1). Consistent with past research, attire here serves as a signal to the interviewer when making hiring and attitude judgments (Chaplin et al., 2000; Liden and Persons, 1986; Rynes, Bretz, and Gerhart, 1991). Specifically, when the attire worn by the applicant is perceived as being appropriate for the position (as reflected here by a business suit), the interviewer is more likely to offer the individual a job and have a more positive attitude toward the individual. Similarly, Davis, Clarke, Francis, and Hughes (1992) show that teachers wearing formal attire generate more favorable attitudes and higher respect than teachers wearing casual attire in the classroom. Griffiths (2008) finds consistent reactions to performers' varying attire: those wearing attire that is appropriate for performing are viewed as "performers" and generate more favorable attitudes. Some of the attractiveness effects are interesting. Although the overall effect of attire is insignificant, analysis suggests that perceptions of job level/applicant attire "fit" impact attractiveness judgments. Results are almost as predicted with a slight variance. The data show that for an upper-management position, the interviewer is more favorable toward an applicant wearing a suit compared to an applicant in casual attire. Originally predicted was that reactions based on a custom-suit would also vary from a business suit. As noted in the Manipulation

The Impact of Attire

22

Checks section, this lack of variance may have resulted from the descriptions of the suits being too similar (discussed in detail later). Also, for the entry-level position, the casual and the business suit applicants are seen as more attractive compared to the applicant wearing a custommade suit. This suggests that an applicant may be seen as over-dressed when wearing a custom suit to an interview for a lower level position. Consistently, Satrpap, Melhado, Curado Coelho, and Otta (1992) show that an individual who is dressed in a more formal way socially is considered as less handsome, charming, and attractive than an individual who is less dressed-up or wearing more casual attire. Earlier, Buckley (1983) supports that physical attractiveness evaluations vary for individuals and that dress impacts such judgments. Effects for attractiveness are noteworthy: e.g., Bardack and McAndrew (1985) confirm that physical attractiveness influences the decision about whether a person should be hired. One plausible explanation for the lack of differences for the two suit options is that the attire manipulation is ineffective. Although the attire descriptions are different based on manipulation checks, the descriptions of the different suits (business and custom-made) are similar to each other. Effects may have been stronger had the two suit descriptions been perceived as more different. Although the description clearly states that one ensemble was a normal business suit and the other was a custom made suit, the description that followed each of these titles may have been too close in comparison. Both describe a silk tie, business shoes, and the three different parts of the suit (jacket, pants, shirt). The only difference is in the wording describing the three suit parts: i.e., the custom made suit states that it is custom made and the normal suit simply states that it has three pieces to the suit. With the similarities in the descriptions of these suits, participants may not have understood or visualized the difference in degree of fashion. In addition, a critical research design element is that the experimental stimuli are verbal. While verbal cues reduce potential manipulation confounds, the true impact of attire is likely

The Impact of Attire

23

visual. A recent study by DeGroot and Gooty (2009) shows that visual cues help an interviewer do a better job of focusing on job-related behavior and information in an interview. In addition, interviewers are aware that visual cues provide important information that must be attended to. Peruch, Chabanne, Nexa, Thinus, and Denis (2006) show that when an individual is given a picture (visual) description of an area rather than a written (verbal) description, the individual is able to give a better description of the area and interpret what is being depicted. Childers, Houston, and Heckler (1985) showed that individuals prefer to have visual descriptions of items rather than verbal descriptions. LeBlanc, Chang Jin, Simpson, Stamou, and McCrary (1998) explore the distinctions between visual versus verbal depictions in a musical environment, finding that pictorial scales are preferred by musicians over verbal scales. These studies show that visual cues are easier to process, contain more information, and are often preferred by individuals over verbal cues. Pictures or other forms of visual representation of the attire being worn by the applicants may have been more effective. Another objective is to determine whether applicants are judged as more or less competent based on their attire (H2B). Like attractiveness judgments, the data show that clothing serves as a "signal" of applicant competence. In addition, findings suggest that an applicant can "use" clothing to signal to the interviewer the competence level they possess. These results imply that attire acts as a central cue when forming job-related judgments (cf. Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). Traditionally, attire is regarded as a visual cue and thus, as a form of peripheral processing; but my data suggests that attire can act as a central cue when forming performance-based assessments. Results for competence beliefs are in line with Petty, Heesacker, and Hughes' (1997) argument that attitude change can result from relatively thoughtful (central route) processes. Cell means indicate that individuals wearing casual attire are perceived as less competent compared to individuals wearing business or custom-made suits (H2C). However,

The Impact of Attire

24

competence perceptions for the applicants wearing a business suit or a custom-made suit are closer than expected. As noted above regarding the nature of the attire descriptions, this may have been the result of the descriptions being insufficiently distinctive. Results indicate that the business suit and custom-made suit options were categorized by study subjects as being similar. The literature confirms that consumers tend to categorize or group different items that they feel are similar together (e.g., Cohen and Basu, 1987): e.g., consumers rarely conceive of a product in isolation, but rather think of it based on an assortment of products. Smith, Cejka, and Fazio (1996) also support this idea of reasoning, noting that people classify items based on key words that they remember. By categorizing the two suit options together, participants formed judgments more abstractly, solely based on the applicant wearing a suit, instead of on the different type of suit being worn. Visual necessity and visual processing may help explain the different pattern of effects for attractiveness and competence beliefs. Hagiwara (1975) shows that when an individual is given data through pictures (visually) rather than through written descriptions (verbally), the individual develops stronger opinions of the object of study. A significant interaction was observed in photograph-traits combinations, but not in verbal description-traits combinations. In the photograph-traits combinations, a clear interaction effect developed demonstrating that the adjectives had less impact in the context of the less attractive photographs. Consistent with research that pictures are more "informative" than words, Ho and Spence (2006) conclude that visual processing is less demanding than verbal processing. When a person is shown a demand in a verbal condition (i.e., left, right), he/she has a more difficult time visualizing the command than when a person is shown a visual interpretation of the command (i.e., arrow pointing left, arrow pointing right). Typically, attractiveness is a type of judgment that requires at least some level of imagery or visual processing. In contrast, the strictly verbal cues used in the current study are

The Impact of Attire

25

likely sufficient to make judgments of competence. Thus, if attractiveness motivated verbal and visual processing, and competence required only the former, the differing effects for attractiveness and competence judgments are understandable. Overall and not completely surprising, both suit options lead to more favorable judgments than the casual ensemble: i.e., the suits are not distinguishable. The fact that this simple main effect for attire, where casual varies from the two comparable suit options, dominates over the attire x job level interaction effect may indicate a weak job level manipulation. An ineffective job level manipulation may also contribute to the lack of significant match-up effects. The two applicants described in the stimulus materials only differed slightly: the description for entrylevel states "needs to motivate employees" and the upper-level "needs to motivate employees and lead business development." Job requirements are more varied, and do require additional subject processing. The entry-level position requires a high school diploma, good verbal and written communication skills, and basic computer skills; whereas the upper-level position needs a 4-year college degree, 5-10 years cumulative full-time work experience in a role of similar scope and responsibility, excellent verbal and written communication skills, advanced computer skills, and retail/sales experience. [All other requirements are the same for both positions.] Note that job level is the primary manipulated attribute. Perhaps job type is more critical than level, per se. That is, if I compare two types of jobs, instead of the same job with different position levels, the attire-job match-up may emerge. For example, future efforts may compare individuals applying for an upper-management position at a construction company versus an upper-management applicant at a major global financial institution. The finding that casual attire produces higher attractiveness ratings for the entry-level position than business attire is interesting. Schema congruity impacts human processing and may offer insight (e.g., Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989). For example, product/product category

The Impact of Attire

26

schema congruity influences evaluations such that moderate schema incongruity is most favorable (Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989). Applying this framework, results here suggest that the custom-made suit/entry-level stimuli are perceived as very incongruent (M=5.13), the business suit/entry-level stimuli are regarded as congruent (M=5.55), and the casual attire/entrylevel stimuli are moderately incongruent (M=5.64). For the upper-management position, the custom-made suit was congruent (M=6.05), the business suit was moderately incongruent (M=6.28), and the casual attire was very congruent (M=5.70). In summary, the findings can be explained via Meyers-Levy and Tybouts (1989) arguments that moderately incongruence leads to more favorable evaluations than congruent or very congruent product/category schema combinations. Peracchio and Tybout (1996) expand on this perspective and find that when consumers possess limited knowledge about a product category, congruity effects their position more compared to consumers with extensive knowledge. Individuals in the current study (i.e., college students) have limited knowledge about conducting interviews, suggesting that congruity effects are more likely. The results of the study do, however, show that the incongruity hypothesis is not evident for competence. The results for competence, likeliness to hire, and attitude towards the applicant are more consistent with a match-up explanation: i.e., the two suits are seen as similar and superior to casual dress. Many results are not as predicted, but this study still offers some managerial implications along with insights for interviewees. First, interviewers should understand that attire impacts their own judgments regarding an applicant's job-related abilities and physical characteristics. In addition, it is likely that attire impacts interviewers' assessment of an applicant's fit with their firm's corporate image. Attitude theory suggests that such favorable inferences should lead to positive hiring outcomes. Managers are also advised to instruct their recruiters and interviewers regarding "signals" conveyed by certain types of attire. From an applicant's perspective, he/she

The Impact of Attire

27

should consider the attire worn for a job interview for its importance as a "signal" of competence and performance. Most obviously, the type of attire worn to an interview should be appropriate for the type of position being applied for. Limitations and Future Research. I acknowledge limitations, most notably the above mentioned weak experimental manipulations. In addition, that student subjects may lack the knowledge and experience to make accurate "interviewer" decisions. Since the students in this study are undergraduate students, they have little real business experience. Furthermore, they may have difficulty making accurate predictions of what an interviewer for an upper management position infers based on an applicant description. The younger generation's ideas about what is appropriate for certain jobs may also vary from the more traditional perspective used to generate hypotheses. There are many ways to expand upon this study by altering the situational context. This study explores two different levels of management jobs with three different applicant attire descriptions and thus, generalization is limited. As noted above, more elaborate attire descriptions with visual cues and testing more job types are suggested for a comprehensive test of a job/attire match-up. More detailed attire stimuli will enable a stronger test of a possible "overdressed" effect. The study can also be expanded by exploring what other factors (i.e., questions asked during the interview, applicants attitude during an interview, formal application) have an influence on a job interview. Future study is needed to understand and resolve the above noted match-up and incongruity effects. Perhaps most importantly, while past research and the current study confirm that attire influences interviewer perceptions, whether or not these initial inferences are accurate predictors of job performance remains unresolved.

The Impact of Attire

28

REFERENCES Abelson, Robert P., Donald R. Kinder, Mark D. Peters, and Susan T. Fiske (1982), "Affective and Semantic Components in Political Person Perception," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (4), 619-630. Bardack, Nadia, and Francis McAndrew (1985), The Influence of Physical Attractiveness and Manner of Dress on Success in a Simulated Personnel Decision, The Journal of Social Psychology, 125 (6), 777-778. Batra, Rajeev, and Pamela Miles Homer (2004), "The Situational Impact of Brand Image Beliefs," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (4), 318-330. Beike, Denise, and Steven Sherman (1994), Social Inference: Inductions, Deductions, and Analogies, Handbook of Social Cognition, 1 (2), 209-285. Bem, Sandra L. (1982), Gender Schema Theory and Self-Schema Theory Compared: A Comment on Markus, Crane, Bernstein, and Siladis Self-Schemas and Gender, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (6), 1192-1194. Bergeron, Jasmin, Jean-Mathieu Fallu, and Jasmin Roy (2008), "A Comparison of the Effects of the First Impression and the Last Impression in a Selling Context," Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 23 (2), 19-36. Bird, Rebecca Bliege, and Eric Alden Smith (2005), Signaling Theory, Strategic Interaction, and Symbolic Capital, Current Anthropology, 46 (2), 221-238. Biswas, Dipayan, Abhijit Biswas, and Neel Das (2006), The Differential Effects of Celebrity and Expert Endorsements on Consumer Risk Perceptions: The Role of Consumer Knowledge, Perceived Congruency, and Product Technology Orientation, Journal of Advertising, 35 (2), 17-31. Boulding, William, and Amna Kirmani (1993), A Consumer-Side Experimental Examination of Signaling Theory: Do Consumers Perceive Warranties as Signals of Quality? Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 111-123. Buckley, Hilda M. (1983), Perceptions of Physical Attractiveness as Manipulated by Dress: Subjects Versus Independent Judges, Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 114 (2), 243-248. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009, October 2), Employment Situation Summary. Cacioppo, John T, Chuan Feng Kao, Richard E. Petty, and Regina Rodriguez (1986), Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: An Individual Difference Perspective, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (5), 1032.

The Impact of Attire

29

Chaplin, William F., Jeffrey B Phillips, Jonathan D Brown, Nancy R Clanton, and Jennifer L Stein (2000), Handshaking, Gender, Personality, and First Impressions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (1), 110-117. Childers, Terry L, Michael J. Houston, and Susan E. Heckler (1985), Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual Versus Verbal Information Processing, Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (2), 125-134. Cohen, Joel B., and Kunal Basu (1987), Alternative Models of Categorization: Toward a Contingent Processing Framework, Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (3), 455-472. Connor, Barabara H., Richard H. Nagasawa, and Kathlene Peters (1975), "Person and Costume: Effects on the Formation of First Impressions," Home Economics Research Journal, 4, 3241. Cremer, David De, and Eric van Dijk (2008), Leader-Follower Effect in Resource Dilemmas: The Roles of Leadership Selection and Social Responsibility, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11 (3), 355. Cunha, Flavio, and James J. Heckman (2008), Formulating, Identifying and Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation, The Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 738. Davis, Bernard, A. Bruce Clarke, James Francis, and George Hughes (1992), Dress For Respect: The Effects of Teacher Dress on Student Expectations of Deference Behavior, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 38 (1), 27-31. Degroot, Timothy, and Janaki Gooty (2009), Can Nonverbal Cues be Used to Make Meaningful Personality Attributions in Employment Interviews? Journal of Business and Psychology, 24 (2), 179-192. Dick, Alan, Dipankar Chakravarti, and Gabriel Biehal (1990), Memory-Based Inferences During Consumer Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (1), 82. Fennis, Bob M., and Ad Th H Pruyn (2007), You Are What You Wear: Brand Personality Influences on Consumer Impression Formation, Journal of Business Research, 60 (6), 634. Forsythe, Sandra, Mary Frances Drake, and Charles E. Cox (1985), Influence of Applicant's Dress on Interviewer's Selection Decisions, Journal of Applied Psychology, 70 (2), 374. Friedman, Hershey H., and Linda Friedman (1979), Endorser Effectiveness By Product Type, Journal of Advertising Research, 19 (5), 63-71. Gould, Stephen J, and Barbara B. Stern (1989), Gender Schema and Fashion Consciousness, Psychology and Marketing, 6 (2), 129-145.

The Impact of Attire

30

Griffiths, Noola (2008), The Effects of Concert Dress and Physical Appearance on Perceptions of Female Solo Performers, Musicae Scientiae, 12 (2), 273-290. Hagiwara, Shigeru (1975), Visual Versus Verbal Information in Impression Formation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 (4), 692-698. Heilmann, Pia (2007), High Level Competence: A Tool for Coping With Organizational Change, Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(9), 727. Ho, Cristy, and Charles Spence (2006), Verbal Interface Design: Do Verbal Directional Cues Automatically Orient Visual Spatial Attention? Computers in Human Behavior, 22 (4), 733748. Homer, Pamela M. (1995), "Ad Size as an Indicator of Perceived Advertising Costs and Effort: The Effects on Memory and Perceptions," Journal of Advertising, 24 (Winter), 1-12. Kahle, Lynne R., and Pamela M. Homer (1985), Physical Attractiveness of the Celebrity Endorser: A Social Adaptation Perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (4), 954961. Kahn, Barbara E., and Jonathan Baron (1995), An Exploratory Study of Choice Rules Favored For High-Stakes Decisions, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4 (4), 305-328. Kamins, Michael A (1990), An Investigation Into the Match-Up Hypothesis in Celebrity Advertising: When Beauty May Be Only Skin Deep, Journal of Advertising, 19 (1), 4-13. Kamins, Michael A, Henry Assael, and John L Graham (1990), Cognitive Response Involvement Model of the Process of Product Evaluation Through Advertising Exposure and Trial, Journal of Business Research, 20 (3), 191-215. Kanungo, Rabindra N., and Sam Pang (1973), Effects of Human Models on Perceived Product Quality, Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 (2), 172-178. Kardes, Frank R. (1993), Consumer Inference: Determinants, Consequences, and Implicantsion for Advertising, Advertising Exposure, Memory, and Choice, 349 (7), 163-191. Kardes, Frank R., Steven S. Posavac, and Maria L. Cronley (2004), Consumer Inference: A Review of Processes, Bases, and Judgment Contexts, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (3), 230-256. Kirmani, Amna (1997), Advertising Repetition as a Signal of Quality: If Its Advertised So Much, Something Must be Wrong, Journal of Advertising, 26 (3), 77-86. Kristof-Brown, Amy, Karen J. Jansen, and Amy E. Colbert (2002), A Policy-Capturing Study of the Simultaneous Effects of Fit With Jobs, Groups, and Organizations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (5), 985.

The Impact of Attire

31

Kristof-Brown, Amy, Ryan Zimmerman, and Eric C. Johnson (2005), Consequences of Individuals Fit at Work: A Meta-Analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization, PersonGroup, and Person-Supervisor Fit, Personal Psychology, 58 (2), 281. Kruglanski, Arie W., and Donna M. Webster (1996), Motivated Closing of the Mind: Seizing and Freezing, Psychological Review, 103 (2), 263. Lauver, Kristy J., Amy Kristof-Brown (2001), Distinguishing Between Employees Perceptions of Person-Job and Person-Organization Fit, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59 (3), 454470. LeBlanc, Albert, Young Chang Jin, Charles S. Simpson, Lelouda Stamou, and Jan McCrary (1998), Pictorial Versus Verbal Rating Scales in Music Preference Measurement, Journal of Research in Music Education, 46 (3), 425-435. Liden, Robert C., and Charles K. Parsons (1986), A Field Study of Job Applicant Interview Perceptions, Alternative Opportunities, and Demographic Characteristics, Personnel Psychology, 39 (1), 109. Lynch, James, and Drue Schuler (1994), The Matchup Effect of Spokesperson and Product Congruency: A Schema Theory Interpretation, Psychology and Marketing, 11 (5), 417-445. Maass, Ann, Anna Colombo, Alessandra Colombo, and Steven J. Sherman (2001), Inferring Traits From Behaviors Versus Behaviors From Traits: The Induction-Deduction Asymmetry, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (3), 391-404. Match Leaders to Followers: Proper Meshing of Personalities Produces More Effective Teamwork (1959), Nations Business (pre-1986), 47 (5), 90. Meyers-Levy, Joan, and Alice M. Tybout (1989), Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation, Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 39-54. Misra, Shekhar, and Sharon E. Beatty (1990), "Celebrity Spokesperson and Brand Congruence: An Assessment of Recall and Affect," Journal of Business Research, 21 (2), 159. Moore, David J., and Pamela Miles Homer (2008), Self-Brand Connections: The Role of Attitude Strength and Autobiographical Memory Primes, Journal of Business Research, 61 (July), 707-714. Nobre, Pedro J, and Jose Pinto-Gouveia (2009), Questionnaire of Cognitive Schema Activation in Sexual Context: A Measure to Assess Cognitive Schemas Activated in Unsuccessful Sexual Situations, Journal of Sex Research, 46 (5), 425-437. Nordahl, Hans M., Harold Holthe, and Jon A. Haugum (2005), Early Maladaptive Schemas in Patients With or Without Personality Disorders: Does Schema Modification Predict Symptomatic Relief? Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12 (2), 142-149.

The Impact of Attire

32

Peracchio, Laura A., and Alice Tybout (1996), The Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge in Schema-Based Product Evaluation, Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (3), 177-192. Peruch, Patrick, Vanessa Chabanne, Marie-Pascale Nesa, Catherine Thinus-Blanc, and Michel Denis (2006), Comparing Distances in Mental Images Constructed From Visual Experience or Verbal Descriptions: The Impact of Survey Versus Route Perspective, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59 (11), 1950-1967. Petty, Richard E., Martin Heesacker, and Jan Hughes (1997), The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Implications for the Practice of School Psychology, Journal of School Psychology, 35 (2), 107-136. Pople, Laura Elizabeth (1994), Juror Information Processing: An Inquiry into underlying Psychological Processes, Dissertations and Theses: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 57 (7-B), 3901. Ross, William T., Jr., and Elizabeth H. Creyer (1992), Making Inferences About Missing Information: The Effects of, Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (1), 14. Rynes, Sara L, Robert D. Bretz, and Barry Gerhart (1991), The Importance of Recruitment in Job Choice: A Different Way of Looking, Personal Psychology, 44 (3), 487-521. Sandberg, Jorgen, and Ashly H. Pinnington (2009), Professional Competence as Ways of Being: An Existential Ontological Perspective, The Journal of Management Studies, 46(7), 1138. Satrapa, Andra, Marcia B. Mehado, Margarida M. Curado Coelho, and Emma Otta (1992), Influence of Style of Dress on Formation of First Impression, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74 (1), 159-162. Sheldon, Kennon (2007), Gender Differences in Preferences for Singles Ads that Proclaim Extrinsic Versus Intrinsic Values, Journal of Psychology, 57 (1/2), 119-129. Smith, Eliot R., Russell H. Fazio, and Mary Ann Cejka (1996), Accessible Attitudes Influence Categorization of Multiply Categorizable Objects, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (5), 888-898. Teng Lv, and Ping Yan (2006), Mapping DTDs to Relational Schemas With Semantic Constraints, Information and Software Technology, 48 (4), 245-252. Till, Brian D., and Michael Busler (1998), Matching Products with Endorsers: Attractiveness Versus Expertise, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15 (6), 576-586. Tormala, Zakary L, Derek D. Rucker, and Charles Seger (2008), When Increased Confidence Yields Increased Thought: A Confidence-Matching Hypothesis, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 141-147.

The Impact of Attire

33

Turban, Daniel B., and Allan P. Jones (1988), Supervisor Subordinate Similarity Types, Effects, and Mechanisms, Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (2), 228-234. Verquer, Michelle L., Terry A. Beehr, and Stephen H. Wagner (2003), A Meta-Analysis of Relations Between Person Organization Fit and Work Attitudes, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63 (3), 473. Wyer, Robert S., Thomas Lee Budesheim, Sharon Shavitt, Ellen Riggle, R. Jeffrey Melton, and James H. Kuklinski (1991), Image, Issues, and Ideology: The Processing of Information About Political Candidates, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (4), 533-545.

The Impact of Attire

34

TABLE 1 Experimental Design Attire Casual Job Level Entry Upper Cell 1 Cell 4 Cell 2 Cell 5 Cell 3 Cell 6 Business Custom

The Impact of Attire

35

TABLE 2 Summary of Manipulation Checks dfs Realistic Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level Professional Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level Dressy Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level Well-Groomed Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level Business Attire Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level High Quality Clothes Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level Appropriate for Level Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level 2, 191 1, 191 2, 191 28.26 0.71 0.44 .000 .402 .643 2, 191 1, 191 2,191 51.49 0.00 1.33 .000 .981 .268 2, 191 1, 191 2,191 74.55 0.18 0.52 .000 .671 .597 2, 191 1, 191 2, 191 17.97 0.27 2.43 .000 .603 .090 2, 191 1, 191 2, 191 98.68 0.31 0.77 .000 .582 .464 2, 191 1, 191 2, 191 2.01 44.18 2.70 .137 .000 .070 2, 191 1, 191 2, 191 0.99 22.74 1.33 .375 .000 .267 F p

The Impact of Attire

36

TABLE 3 Summary of Treatment Means* Attire Casual Measures Hiring Intent Overall Attitude Competence Attractiveness * Mean for Entry-level [Upper-level] 6.53 [6.91] 7.09 [7.00] 5.47 [6.35] 5.64 [5.70] 7.36 [7.44] 7.58 [7.74] 6.51 [6.57] 5.55 [6.28] 7.58 [7.35] 7.83 [7.67] 6.64 [6.60] 5.13 [6.05] Business Custom

The Impact of Attire

37

TABLE 4 Summary of ANCOVA Results dfs Hiring Intent FC Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level Overall Attitude FC Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level Competence Beliefs FC Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level Attractiveness Beliefs FC Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level 1, 181 2, 181 1, 181 2, 181 4.47 0.53 0.21 4.04 .036 . 592 .651 .019 1, 181 2, 181 1, 181 2, 181 0.92 4.79 2.13 2.03 .338 .009 .147 .134 1, 174 2, 174 1, 174 2, 174 0.55 4.34 0.02 0.21 .461 .014 .881 .809 1, 174 2, 174 1, 174 2, 174 <.01 5.99 0.17 0.79 .977 .003 .685 .458 F p

The Impact of Attire

38

TABLE 5 Summary of ANOVA Results dfs Hiring Intent Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level Overall Attitude Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level Competence Beliefs Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level Attractiveness Beliefs Dress Job Level Dress x Job Level 2, 188 1, 188 2, 188 0.95 0.26 3.90 . 390 .608 .022 2, 187 1, 187 2, 187 4.79 2.48 1.99 .009 .117 .140 2, 181 1, 181 2, 181 4.65 0.16 0.49 .011 .694 .614 2, 180 1, 180 2, 180 6.41 0.25 0.81 .002 .622 .446 F p

The Impact of Attire

39

TABLE 6 Summary of Treatment Means (H4)* Attire Casual High FC Hiring Intent Overall Attitude Low FC Hiring Intent Overall Attitude * Mean for Entry-level [Upper-level] 6.59 [6.70] 7.00 [6.57] 7.72 [7.33] 7.72 [7.63] 7.67 [7.13] 7.96 [7.56] 6.46 [7.11] 7.19 [7.42] 7.00 [7.55] 7.44 [7.85] 7.49 [7.57] 7.69 [7.79] Business Custom