Hiring bias and the disabled interviewee: Effects of manipulating work history and disability information of the disabled job applicant

Journal of Vocational Behavior 16, %-IO4 (1980)

Hiring Bias and the Disabled interviewee: Effects of Manipulating Work History and Disability Information of the Disabled Job Applicant CHRETOPHERI. STONEAND BIRGIT SAWATZKI University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Ninety MBA students were randomly assigned to one of six experimental conditions in a 3(levels of disability) x Z(levels of employment history) design. Levels of disability (Physical, Psychiatric, and No Disability) and levels of employment history (Good and Poor) were manipulated by giving the subjects bogus information on a job application form prior to hearing a taped job interview. Subjects then rated the quality of the interview and stated the probability that they would hire the interviewee. Evaluations of the interview and hiring probabilities were different between the experimental groups. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

The contention that disabled persons have been victimized by a score of societal misconceptions, beliefs, and discriminations has become a virtual cliche in the literature of psychology and related fields (Anthony, 1972; Centers & Centers, 1963; Chesler, 1%5; Dow, 1%5; DuBrow, 1965; Feinberg, 1967; Gellman, 1959; Goffman, 1963; Kleck, 1%8, 1%9; Kleck, Ono, & Hastorf, 1966; Weinberg-Asher, in press; Whiteman & Lukoff, 1965; Yuker, 1%5). Present economic conditions and legislative imperatives, however, indicate that at least one aspect of the social psychology of disability remains timely and relevant: the opportunity for, and impediments to, satisfactory career selection by the disabled candidate for employment. Numerous studies have documented the difficulty encountered by the disabled applicant in securing a suitable position (Bean & Beard, 1975; Cohen, 1962; Eggers, 1960; Florian, 1978; Perlman & Strudler, 1976; Polner, 1958; Rickard, Triandis, & Patterson, 1963; Sears, 1975; Thoben, 1975; Williams, 1972; Zuger, 1971). Many of these individuals have numerous employability handicaps in their disfavor at the The authors are grateful to Philip Smith for his expertise in preparing parts of this manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent to Christopher I. Stone, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201. 96 Oool-8791/80/010096-09$02.00/O Copyright All rights

@ 1980 by Academic Press, Inc. of reproduction in any form reserved.

HIRING

BIAS AND THE DISABLED

INTERVIEWEE

97

outset of the job-seeking process (lack of marketable skills, poor employment record, employer misconceptions about the candidate’s disability, etc.). Management’s list of the presumed disadvantages which disabled people bring to employment includes: lower productivity; higher accident rates and increased liability; high absenteeism; less versatility in work assignments; special modifications in machinery, plant, and work routines; resentment of co-workers and customers; and disagreeable personality characteristics (Florian, 1978; Olshansky, 1%1; Perlman & Strudler, 1976; Williams, 1972). While empirical evidence to the contrary exists (e.g., Benton, Permenter, Baylor, & McLelland, 1974; President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped, 1970; Thompson, 1957), these stereotypical images die hard. Sands and Zalkind (1972) administered a questionnaire before and after an intensive year-long educational campaign to a cross section of manufacturing executives. The intervention, designed to promote work opportunities for epileptics, included special mailings, meetings with community organizations, and the use of mass media. No significant modification was found in subjects’ attitudes; it seems highly unlikely that actual hiring behavior would have been affected. In spite of formidable criticism of its validity, reliability, efficiency, and fairness, the employment interview continues to be of paramount importance in obtaining a job for both the able bodied and handicapped (Dunnette & Bass, 1963; Hakel, Dobmeyer, & Dunnette, 1970; Wagner, 1949). In a polling of some 2500 employers by the Prentice-Hall Publishing Company and the American Society of Personnel Administration (1975), the interview was designated as the single most important employee selection procedure. Unfortunately, the decision flow in the selection process appears largely to be in a negative direction; often the interviewer forms an early negative impression of the applicant, spending the remainder of the interview looking for data to support rejection (Constantin, 1976; Hake1 et al., 1970; Springbett, 1958; Webster, 1964). Such an approach can be devastating for the disabled interviewee, whose condition (which may or may not be functionally handicapping) may provoke an interviewer response ranging from open interrogation to unspoken doubt. In any case, the burden of proof of ability clearly rests with the applicant. Recently, Galassi and Galassi (1978) reviewed the research on interview behaviors which correlate with selection decisions. Communication and interpersonal skills, attire and attractiveness, maturity and motivation, and certainly a demonstration of knowledge and skills required for the position ail emerged as being important. Interviewers’ subjective factors play a particularly important role with women and minorities (and by implication, the disabled), however, and it is important that the dis-

98

STONE

AND SAWATZKI

abled interviewee take steps to optimize the impression he or she makes on the interviewer. While research data make it clear that the presence of a disability may reduce an interviewee’s chances of receiving a positive hiring decision, it is unclear how this information is processed by a prospective employer in making such a decision. The presence of the disability may hurt the applicant regardless of the quality of his or her interview behavior. Alternatively, the disability may slant the interviewer’s perception of the applicant’s interview performance; thus the applicant is rejected, ostensibly because of a poor showing in the employment interview. In other words, is the disabled applicant rejected because of, or in spite of, interview performance? This study was directed toward providing some empirical data in response to this question. We attempted to determine how management students’ hiring decisions would be affected by different types of information regarding an applicant’s work history and disability status. If different conditions of information lead to different evaluations of the same job interview, then apparently it is perceptions occurring in the interview which are slanted. If, however, evaluations of the interview are not affected by the information on disability and work history, but such information leads to rejection of the applicant anyway, then intervention strategies may have to be broadened to include more than just interview performance. METHOD

Subjects Ninety Master of Business Administration (MBA) graduate students were voluntarily recruited from management classes during the 1978-1979 fall semester at a large urban midwestern university. In the interests of preserving anonymity, no age or sex data were collected from subjects. It was apparent that the subject population was predominately male, with a median age judged to be in the range 22-26 years. Procedure The 90 subjects were randomly assigned to one of six experimentai conditions in a 3(levels of disability information) x 2(levels of work record information) design, The levels of disability information were: Physically Disabled, Psychiatrically Disabled, No Disability. The two levels of the work history factor were Good and Poor. Subjects’ participation was during regularly scheduled class time. Each subject received a packet consisting of: (a) an informed consent document; (b) an interview rating form; and (c) an interviewee description form. The interviewee description was constructed in accordance with the

HIRING

BIAS AND THE DISABLED

INTERVIEWEE

99

subject’s treatment assignment; i.e., it contained data indicating the employment history and disability status of the person whose interview they were about to hear. (All sample forms may be obtained from the first author.) The favorable employment history showed that the interviewee (a 2%year-old male) had held a series of three prior positions, with job changes having come through promotions. The poor history indicated 10 prior positions; reasons for leaving included numerous instances of layoffs, terminations, and quits for supervisory reasons, etc., with frequent intervening periods of unemployment. Disability information indicated one of three conditions: No Disability (control); Psychiatric Disability (two hospitalizations for “nervous breakdown”); Physical Disability (paraplegia following a motorcycle accident, with subsequent confinement to a wheelchair). Other information about the interviewee was identical in all six experimental conditions. After reading the interviewee description form, all subjects heard the same lo-min audiotape of a simulated employment interview. The interviewee, after successfully completing a two-year technical college training program, was an applicant for a position as a computer console operator in a firm with an appropriate opening; the interviewer in the tape was male. The interview consisted of discussion centered on the nature of the interviewee’s training, employment interests, abilities and motivations for the position, how problems should be handled, where he had learned of the opening, and how much he knew about the company. No mention was made of disability or work history matters. After the conclusion of the tape, the management students were asked to rate the quality of the interviewee’s performance. The rating form consisted of 12 Likert-type items selected from the literature which yielded a potential total score range from 0 to 48. The items addressed such areas as communication skills, ability to stay focused on interview topics, explanation of work skills, expression of enthusiasm for the job, and appropriate closure. Analysis of the rating form data revealed a Cronbach cxreliability coefficient of 0.85. The subjects also were asked to assign a “probability of hire” score (ranging from 0 to 100) based on a global assessment of whether they would hire that interviewee if an appropriate vacancy existed in their firm. RESULTS

Both individual cell and marginal (main effect) means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1. Our initial interest was to determine whether disability or work history information would influence subjects’ ratings of the quality of the interview. A 3 x 2 ANOVA was performed on the interview rating scores. There was no statistically significant interaction between the work history and disability status factors [F(2,84) = 1.15,~ = .32]. Likewise, there were no significant main effect differences

100

STONE AND SAWATZKI TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Both Dependent Variables in Each Treatment Condition Rating scale score

Treatment condition Good Work Record No Disability Physical Disability Psychiatric Disability Poor Work Record No Disability Physical Disability Psychiatric Disability Main Effects Good Work Record Poor Work Record No Disability Physical Disability Psychiatric Disability

Probability of hire

n

x

SD

x

SD

15 15 15

34.07 32.47 34.40

8.25 6.48 5.15

74.93 66.33 66.93

24.20 25.60 21.51

15 15 15

30.93 32.53 29.27

5.92 7.49 6.48

51.27 56.60 30.80

26.67 24.91 20.81

45 45 30 30 30

33.64 30.91 32.50 32.50 31.83

6.75 6.66 7.18 7.00 5.85

69.40 46.22 63.10 61.47 48.87

23.83 24.25 25.46 25.26 21.16

between levels of the disability factor [F(2,84) = 0.099,~ = .91]; or for the work history factor lF(1,84) = 3.74, p = .057]. In the latter case, however, the mean differences were in the anticipated direction and clearly approached significance. There was moderate correlation between the interview rating score and the probability of hire (Y = 0.63, p < .OOl). For the probability of hire variable, once again the interaction between disability and work history information was insignificant [F(2,84) = 2.26, p = .lll. Both main effect analyses however indicated notable differences. Not surprisingly, an interviewee with a poor work history had a significantly lower probability of being hired than his counterpart with a good employment history [F( 1,84) = 20.91, p < .OOl]. The main effect for the disability factor was likewise significant. The ANOVA [F(2,84) = 3.15, p = .048] was followed by a least significant difference (LSD) multiple comparison test (Winer, 1971); while there were no mean differences in hiring probability between the No Disability and Physical Disability groups, the Psychiatric Disability group fared worse than either (p < .05). DISCUSSION

The overall purpose of this investigation was to determine how different factors might be evaluated by management in determining a hiring decision on a disabled job applicant. Our subjects, MBA management students who may soon be undertaking real hiring responsibilities, were given the assignment of rating a taped job interview after viewing different

HIRING

BIAS AND THE DISABLED

INTERVIEWEE

101

types of information regarding the interviewee’s work history and whether he had a disability. They were also asked to estimate the probability that they would hire the applicant on the basis of the interview and the information given. Our primary concern was to determine whether the disabled job applicant, and/or one with a tarnished work record, would receive poor marks in the interview, which would likely lead to rejection; or whether such an applicant would not appear to be penalized for interview performance, but would still be less likely to receive a favorable hiring decision than an applicant with no disability or work history liabilities. Our findings indicated that interview evaluations did not suffer appreciably when subjects were informed that the interviewee was physically (paraplegic) or psychiatrically (“nervous breakdown”) disabled. Interview ratings were virtually equivalent with those given by subjects who had been told that the person had no disability. Employment history likewise produced no, or at the most trivial, rating differences between subjects shown a good vs a poor work record for the interviewee. The likelihood of one’s being hired, however, may not be so immune to disability stereotype. While confinement to a wheelchair did not appear to lower the interviewee’s selection chances, a psychiatric disability clearly did. This confirms Florian’s (1978) observation that employers prefer to hire the physically, rather than “functionally,” disabled. The evidence for this assertion has a fairly long history (cf. Olshansky, 1959>,but has not always received empirical support (e.g., Bieliauskas & Wolfe, 1960; Hartlage & Taraba, 1971; Landy & Griffith, 1958; Olshansky, Grob, & Malamud, 1958; Wolfe, 1961). These sources are admittedly dated, and usually consisted of measured employer attitudes toward employment of former state hospital patients. While the expressed attitudes were typically favorable, follow-up attempts to obtain hirings reported in two studies (Landy & Griffith, 1958; Olshansky et al., 1958) met, by and large, with failure. The findings reported in this analogue investigation do not imply that interview training is not a useful preparatory step for the disabled job applicant; a poor interview will almost certainly lead to rejection regardless of disability (Galassi & Galassi, 1978). Finely tuned general interview behavior, coupled with the ability to appropriately answer problem questions about a disability (see Prazak, 1969), is an unequivocal asset in a competitive labor market. A number of skill-building approaches have been developed for this, utilizing such methods as role playing (Azrin, Flores, & Kaplan, 1977; Brandzel, 1963; Keil & Barbee, 1973; Perrin, 1977; Prazak, 1969; Sarason & Ganzer, 1973; Stone & Geppert, 1979; Stude & Pauls, 1977), videotaped or live models (Prazak, 1969; Sarason & Ganzer, 1973), and videotape interview feedback (Barbee & Keil, 1973;

102

STONE AND SAWATZKI

Keil & Barbee, 1973). Galassi and Galassi’s (1978) review also discusses intervention techniques. Another suggestion for the disabled interviewee is provided by Springbett’s (1958) research on information processing in the employment decision. Springbett studied the effects of qualitatively different application form information and interview information on final employment decisions. It was determined that the application form information has primacy over appearance data, especially when the appearance data are borderline or dubious (as could be the case with the visibly disabled applicant). Thus, if the disabled applicant can present a strong picture of work skills and employment history, the application form and resume (if appropriate) should probably be sent to the personnel office in advance of a personal visit. Further research efforts, it would seem, should be directed into several areas. First, management students may not be sufficiently “hardened” to generalize these findings to real market personnel officers; furthermore, actual hire rates may not be reflected by laboratory probability estimates. Research in these areas should be initiated. Second, interview quality itself should be experimentally manipulated with other factors held constant in order to obtain a more precise estimate of decision variance accounted for by interview factors alone. Third, research is sorely needed to evaluate the effectiveness of programs in job interview training-and indeed in all aspects of the job acquisition process. Last, intervention programs designed to modify and prevent prejudicial employment practices and attitudes toward the disabled need to be constructed and evaluated. REFERENCES Anthony, W. A. Societal rehabilitation: Changing society’s attitudes toward the physically and mentally disabled. Rehabilitation Psychology, 1972, 19, 117-126. Azrin, N. H., Flores, T., & Kaplan, S. J. Job finding club: A group-assisted program for obtaining employment. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 1977, 21, 130-140. Barbee, J. R., & Keil, E. C. Experimental techniques of job interview training for the disadvantaged. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 58, 209-213. Bean, B. R., & Beard, J. H. Placement for persons with psychiatric disability. Rehabilifation Counseling Bulletin, 1975, 18, 253-258. Benton, R. B., Permenter, N. A., Baylor, J., & McLelland, P. Evaluating the work potential of blind multiply handicapped persons for the manufacture of bath perfume. The New Outlook for the Blind,

1974, 68, 20-24.

Bieliauskas, V. J., & Wolfe, H. E. The attitude of industrial employers toward hiring of former state mental hospital patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1960, 16, 256259. Brandzel, R. Role playing as a training device in preparing multiple-handicapped youth for employment. Group Psychotherapy. 1963, 16, 16-24. Centers, L.. & Centers, R. Peer group attitudes toward the amputee child. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1963, 61, 127-132.

HIRING BIAS AND THE DISABLED

INTERVIEWEE

103

Chesler, M. A, Ethnocentrism and attitudes toward the physically disabled. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1%5, 2, 877-882. Cohen, J. S. Employer attitudes toward hiring mentally retarded individuals. American Journal of Mental Dejiciency, 1962, 67, 705-713. Constantin, S. W. An investigation of information probability in the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 743-749. Dow, T. Social class and reaction to physical disability. Psychological Reports, 1965, 17, 39-62. DuBrow, A. L. Attitudes toward disability. Journai of Rehabilitation, 1965, 31(4), 25-26. Dunnette, M. D., & Bass, B. M. Behavioral scientists and personnel management. Industrial Relations, 1963, 2, 115-130. Eggers, E. T. Employment of the physically handicapped. Industrial Medicine and Surgery, 1960, 29, 427-433. Feinberg, L. B. Social desirability and attitudes toward the disabled. The Personnel and Guidunce Journal, 1967, 46, 375-381. Florian, V. Employers’ opinions of the disabled person as a worker. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 1978, 22, 38-43. Galassi, J. P., & Galassi, M. D. Preparing individuals for job interviews: Suggestions from more than60 years of research. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1978,57(4), 188-192. Gellman, W. Roots of prejudice against the handicapped. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1959, 25(l), 4-6; 25. Goffman, E. Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Hake], M. D., Dobmeyer, T. W., & Dunnette, M. D. Relative importance of three content dimensions in overall suitability ratings of job applicant resumes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 65-71. Hartlage, L. C., & Taraba, D. Implications of differential employer acceptance of individuals with physical, mental, and social handicaps. Rehubilitution Research and Practice Review, 1971, 2(3), 45-48. Keil, E. C., & Barbee, J. R. Behavior modification and training the disadvantaged job interviewee. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1973, 22, 50-56. Kleck, R. Physical stigma and nonverbal cues emitted in face-to-face interaction. Human Relations, 1968, 21, 19-28. Kleck, R. Physical stigma and task oriented interactions. Human Relations, 1969,22,53&O. Kleck, R., Ono, H., & Hastorf, A. The effects of physical deviance upon face-to-face interaction, Human Relations, 1966, 19, 425-436. Landy, D., & Griffith, W. P. Placement of the emotionally handicapped-employer willingness and counselor practice. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1958, 24(4), 17-18. Olshansky, S. Employer receptivity in rehabilitation of the mentally ill. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1959. Olshansky, S. Employer receptivity. Journal of Rehabilitation. 1961, 27(5), 35-36. Olshansky, S., Grab, S., & Malamud, I. Employers’ attitudes and practices in the hiring of ex-mental patients. Mental Hygiene, 1958, 42, 391-401. Perlman, L. G., & Strudler, L. A. The epileptic citizen-an employment perspective. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1976, 42(2), 36-40. Perrin, T. 0. Job seeking skills training for adult retarded clients. Journul of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 1977, 8, 181-189. Polner, W. Hiring limitations on cardiacs in Chicago area firms. Industrial Medicine und Surgery, 1958, 27, 316-320. Prazak, J. A. Learning job seeking interview skills. In J. D. Krumboltz and C. E. Thorsen (Eds.), Behavioral counseling: Cases and techniques. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. Pp. 414-428.

104

STONE AND SAWATZKI

Prentice-HalUASPA Survey. Employee testing and selection procedures: Where are they headed? Personnel management policies and practices. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975. The President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped. How: federal agencies have served the handicapped. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1970. Rickard, T., Triandis, H., & Patterson, C. Indices of employer prejudice toward disabled applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963, 47, 52-55. Sands, H., & Zalkind, S. S. Effects of an educational campaign to change employer attitudes toward hiring epileptics. Epilepsia, 1972, 13, 87-96. Sarason, I. G., & Ganzer, V. J. Modeling and group discussion in the rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1973, 20, 442-449. Sears, J. H. The able disabled. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1975, 41(2), 19-22. Springbett, B. M. Factors affecting the final decision in the employment interview. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1958, 12, 13-22. Stone, C. I., & Geppert, C. C. Job interviewing skills training: An empirical investigation of two methods. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 1979, 22, 396-401. Stude, E. W., & Pauls, T. The use of a job seeking skills group in developing placement readiness. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 1977, 8, 115-120. Thoben, P. J. Civil rights and employment of the severely handicapped. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 1975, 18, 240-244. Thompson, D. M. The company and the physically impaired worker. National Industrial Conference Board Studies in Personnel Policy No. 163. New York: National Industrial Conference Board, 1957. Wagner, R. W. The employment interview: A critical survey. Personnel Psychology, 1949, 2, 17-46. Webster, E. C. Decision-making in the employment interview. Montreal: Industrial Relations Centre, McGill University, 1964. Weinberg-Asher, N. Social stereotyping of the physically handicapped. Rehabilitation Psychology, in press. Whiteman, M., & Lukoff, I. Attitudes toward blindness and other physical handicaps. Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 66, 135-145. Williams, C. A. Is hiring the handicapped good business? Journal of Rehabilitation, 1972, 38(2), 30-34. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. 2nd ed. Wolfe, H. E. The attitude of small industrial employers toward hiring of former state mental hospital patients. Journal of Clinical Psychofogy, 1961, 17, 90-92. Yuker, H. E. Attitudes as determinants of behavior. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1965, 31(6), 15-16. Zuger, R. To place the unplaceable. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1971, 37(6), 22-23. Received: March 29, 1979.