Facial Stigmas in Dyadic Selection Interviews

Abstract

Despite being one of the most common methods for selecting employees, the selection interview is not free from biases because it involves social interactions in which physical characteristics influence the interview—one being physical aberrations. The current study used a two-group experimental design in which participants interviewed a confederate without or with a facial stigma (i.e., a port-wine stain birthmark on the cheek). The results showed that interviewers felt more negative affect and displayed more negative behaviors toward a facially stigmatized applicant than an applicant who was not facially stigmatized. The interviewers’ negative affect and behavior were perceived by the applicant who in turn rated the interviewer as more negative than when the applicant did not have a facial stigma. The results were consistent with affective events theory and stigma theory in that interviewing a facially stigmatized applicant is a negative event for the interviewer that elicits negative affect and behaviors. Thus, the current research suggests that interviewers do feel and display negativity toward a facially stigmatized applicant and that a stigmatized applicant is aware of this negativity.

Keywords

interviews stigmas discrimination physical attraction affect

One of the most frequently employed and researched techniques for selecting employees is the selection interview (Campion, Campion, & Hudson, 1994; Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997; Dipboye, 2005). The typical selection interview involves a dyadic interaction between two people in which the purpose is to evaluate an applicant solely based on their responses (Dipboye, 1997, 2005; Guion, 1998). Because they are typically dyadic and face-to-face, research has shown that the selection interview can be biased by auxiliary factors, such as the gender, race, religion, physical disability, or imperfections of an applicant (Dipboye & Colella, 2005; Johnson & Roach-Higgins, 1987). Facial stigmas or imperfections on the face are a common source of bias in dyadic interactions (Goffman, 1963; Hebl, Tickle, & Heatherton, 2000; Tsao, Moeller, & Freiwald, 2008).

The social psychological literature examining stigma theory (Goffman, 1963) maintains unequivocally that interacting with a facially stigmatized individual is a negative experience for both the stigmatized individual and their interactant. Yet research and theory have rarely considered how affect may shape behavior during interactions with stigmatized individuals. In particular, a glaring limitation to stigma theory is that this theory lacks the mechanisms or variables that explain how a stigma affects a stigmatized person through the affect and behaviors of an interactant. To address this empirical and theoretical gap, the current study will examine negative affect and negative behaviors displayed toward a stigmatized applicant as mechanisms in which an applicant’s stigma can elicit a negative reaction that a stigmatized applicant perceives. Thus, the current study builds on stigma theory (Goffman, 1963) by suggesting that negative affect and negative behavioral displays are two reasons why interacting with a stigmatized individual is a negative experience for both the stigmatized individual and their interactant.

The current study builds on stigma theory (Goffman, 1963) in the context of the selection interview in a hospitality setting because there is a gap in the literature examining how facial stigmas influence the interview process, and this is a particularly glaring gap for the hospitality industry for two reasons. First, face perception (i.e., how people recognize and identify a face) is a basic, but exceedingly advanced, process that serves different communicative functions in social interaction (Li & Jain, 2005). Facial stigmas are very distinct and prominent for face perception because they deviate from normal face processing. In fact, eye tracking research has shown that infants have an natural ability to attend to and recognize facial stigmas (Cohen, 1998; Johnson, Dziurawiec, Ellis, & Morton, 1991) and that face perception uses different areas of the brain that are not used to process other stimuli (Li & Jain, 2005; McKone, Kanwisher, & Duchaine, 2007; Tsao et al., 2008).

Second, the hospitality industry emphasizes physical looks (Groschl, 2007; Nickson, Warhurst, & Dutton, 2005; Ruetzler, Tayler, Reynolds, Baker, & Killen, 2012). “Employers in the hospitality industry consider aesthetic labor important, and they seek employees who will look good and sound right” (Kusluvan, Kusluvan, Ilhan, & Buyruk, 2010, p. 176). For example, a study of hotel managers found that physical attractiveness is a factor that is used to assess the employment suitability of applicants (Tews, Stafford, & Tracey, 2010). Similarly, hiring managers in the hospitality industry emphasized physical attractiveness in positions that require customer contact (Tews, Stafford, & Zhu, 2009). In a qualitative study using interviews with hotel managers, Groschl (2007) found that managers tended to emphasize a high level of physical attractiveness. Thus, facially stigmatized applicants in an interview in a hospitality context might be viewed negatively because their facial stigmas deviate from an ideal look.

The literature, however, has not examined (a) how applicants’ stigmas can influence an interviewer’s affect and nonverbal behaviors and (b) how interviewers’ affect and nonverbal behavior can influence the applicant. Thus, the purpose of the current research was to examine how a facial stigma (a birthmark on the cheek) on an applicant influences interviewers’ affect and nonverbal behaviors toward the applicant in a hospitality context. The current article focuses on the affect and nonverbal behaviors of the interviewers because extant research has demonstrated that the negativity, gestures, and behaviors of an interviewer influence the applicants’ behaviors in an interview (for a review, see Macan, 2009; Posthuma, Moregeson, & Campion, 2002). Furthermore, the ecological theory of social perception (Montepare & Dobish, 2003) suggests applicants in interviews are able to read others’ affect and their nonverbal display or expressions. Thus, it is important to examine if interviewers feel and display negative affect toward facially stigmatized applicants than toward applicants who do not have a facial stigma.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Facial Stigmas

A stigma is defined as an “attribute or characteristic that conveys a social identity that is devalued in a particular social context,” which includes “being the target of negative stereotypes, being rejected socially, being discriminated against, and being economically disadvantaged” (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998, p. 505 ). According to Goffman (1963), stigmas can be divided as “discredited” stigmas, or stigmas that are visible or known to others (e.g., having a physical disability), and “discreditable” stigmas, or those that can be concealed (e.g., having a disease). Goffman further specified that many stigmas may be characterized having physical aberrations of the body, including those on the face.

A common finding in the stigma literature is that people generally have negative reactions toward stigmatized individuals, particularly in dyadic, face-to-face interactions (Hebl et al., 2000; Kurzban & Leary, 2001; Major & O’Brien, 2005). Stigmatized individuals tend to illicit disgust, avoidance, and negative affect because stigmas are devalued, negative attributes. For example, people tend to avoid and have negative reactions toward people who have disfigurements or imperfections on their face (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, Lickel, & Kowai-Bell, 2001), are overweight (Hebl & Mannix, 2002; King, Shapiro, Hebl, Singletary, & Turner, 2006), and who have a disease (Kleck, 1969; Mooney, Cohn, & Swift, 1992 ). A study using functional magnetic resonance imaging technology demonstrated that reactions to stigmatized individuals also heighten brain activity that indicates reactions of disgust and aversion (Krendl, Macrae, Kelley, Fugelsang, & Heatherton, 2006). Participants viewed pictures of faces with different stigmas (e.g., obesity, unattractiveness, facial piercing) and made judgments of disgust after viewing the faces. Brain regions that were activated included those that have been previously demonstrated to respond to disgust and aversion.

Goffman’s (1963) seminal book on stigma theory highlighted the fact that people with facial stigmas are particularly prone to negative reactions from interactants because facial stigmas are so visible and obvious to others. Facial stigmas may include skin conditions such as eczema, rosacea, psoriasis, port-wine stains or birthmarks, severe acne, scars, and warts and deformation of the face. People do not routinely interact with people who have some form of facial stigma, thus they are novel and command attention. Interviewing an applicant with a facial stigma can be awkward and uncomfortable because of the uncertainty in how to behave (e.g., to stare at it, ignore it, fear it) when interacting with a facially stigmatized applicant. For example, research has shown that facial stigmas interrupt the face perception process, because facial stigmas attract attention from the perceiver (McKone et al., 2007; Tsao et al., 2008).

Using experimental methods, Blascovich et al. (2001) manipulated whether participants interacted with a research assistant who had a facial stigma by applying a birthmark (i.e., a port-wine stain) on their face or not. The results showed that interacting with a research assistant with a facial stigma increased the participants’ cardiovascular activity than when the research assistant did not have the facial stigma, suggesting that the participants experienced feelings of discomfort, anxiety, and threat when interacting with a facially stigmatized person. In an eye tracking study, Madera and Hebl (2012) found that interviewers do indeed discriminate against facially stigmatized applicants by rating them lower on how well they did in an interview. In particular, the authors manipulated whether participants were presented to an applicant with a facial stigma (i.e., a port-wine stain) or not and found that interviewers were distracted by the facial stigma, recalled less from the interview, and rated the facially stigmatized applicant lower than the nonstigmatized applicant. Thus, people do have negative reactions when interacting with facially stigmatized people in interview settings. However, it is not known if interviewers display negative affect and nonverbal behaviors toward facially stigmatized applicants. It is important to know if facially stigmatized applicants are treated differently, because extant research shows that interviewer behaviors toward an applicant do influence the interview process.

Aesthetic Labor in the Hospitality Industry

Because service is at the heart of the hospitality industry, the role of the service provider in delivering service to the customer is of fundamental importance for hospitality operations. Therefore, the majority of previous research on interactive services in the hospitality industry has concentrated on the importance of a range of “soft” skills, such as emotional labor, interpersonal skills, and service climates (e.g., Chathoth, Mak, Jauhari, & Manaktola, 2007; Gazzoli, Hancer, & Park, 2010; Kim, 2008; Kim, Tavitiyaman, & Kim, 2009). An emerging concept in the literature is that of aesthetic labor or looking physically good and sounding right (Kusluvan et al., 2010). Research suggests that the hospitality industry emphasizes their employees’ physical looks, because employees are the primary provider of service (Groschl, 2007; Ruetzler et al., 2012). In fact, physical attractiveness is a factor that is used to assess the employment suitability of applicants (Tews et al., 2009; Tews et al., 2010).

Thus, the role that a facial stigma might play in the interview is particularly salient in the hospitality industry. Indeed, research suggest that hospitality employers are just as concerned with the physical looks of their employees as they are with their technical skills (Nickson et al., 2005) and that employees in hospitality are aware that physical looks are emphasized at work (Warhurst & Nickson, 2007). The research on the importance of physical looks in the hospitality industry and stigma theory (Goffman, 1963) would both suggest that a facial stigma would elicit a negative reaction in an interview setting. Theory and research, however, has yet to examine the mechanisms that explain how a stigma affects a stigmatized person through the affect and behaviors of an interactant. The current study will examine negative affect and negative behaviors displayed toward a stigmatized applicant as mechanisms in which an applicant’s stigma can elicit a negative reaction that a stigmatized applicant perceives.

Negative Affect and Behaviors

Affect has been defined as the experience of feeling positive or negative moods and emotions (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Much of the research in affect in the workplace has focused on how employees experience negative affect in the workplace, because many aspects of the work environment can influence affect. These include, for example, having stressful deadlines, ineffective managers, stressful physical settings, and work–family conflicts (e.g., Brief & Weiss, 2002). Negative affect involves a variety of negative feelings including distress, disgust, fear, threat, and discomfort (Watson et al., 1988).

Affective events theory proposes that the work environment or situations that occur at work elicit affective reactions, which also influence their behaviors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). In particular, events in the workplace have the potential of creating affective reactions from employees, which can elicit different emotions, such as anger or happiness. This theory suggests that an event is first appraised in terms of its positivity or negativity, producing an initial emotional reaction. This first appraisal varies in both intensity and valence (positive–negative). This initial appraisal is then followed by secondary appraisal, which involves a more complex evaluation that includes attributions of causality, gathering coping resources, and planning behavioral responses. This second appraisal triggers the experience of discrete emotions and the display of such emotions. Research examining affective event theory suggests that positive and negative affect seem to have significantly different causes and effects that are not necessarily correlated (for a review, see Payne & Cooper, 2001).

Although negative affect are emotions and moods that people feel, negative affect can also be displayed through behaviors. In particular, affective events theory proposes that affective reactions also include physiological reactions (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). This is likely because affect can communicate to others what they are feeling, if something is wrong, or if they are satisfied (Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Daus, 2002). In particular, affective events theory proposes that an event at work (e.g., interviewing a facially stigmatized applicant) will elicit an affective response (e.g., feel negative affect) and this affective response also involves behaviors (e.g., showing your negative affect, such as withdrawal).

Evidence suggests that interactions with stigmatized individuals can be negative for nonstigmatized individuals (Blascovich et al., 2001; Hebl et al., 2000). When faced with an individual who is facially stigmatized, the event can be uncomfortable because the interviewer might be distracted by the stigma and think about the stigma, including fearing that it is contagious (Kurzban & Leary, 2001). Additionally, the novelty of a facial disfigurement and the uncertainty of how to behave in a social interaction involving facially disfigured individuals might lead to negative affect (Langer, Fiske, Taylor, & Chanowitz, 1976; Thompson & Kent, 2001). In fact, research shows that people generally have negative reactions toward facially stigmatized individuals in interview settings (Blascovich et al., 2001; Hebl et al., 2000; Madera & Hebl, 2012). Negative events indicate more pressing concerns for well-being and therefore produce stronger affective, physiological, and behavioral activity than positive or neutral events (Cacioppo, Larsen, Smith, & Berntson, 2004; Ito, Larsen, Smith, & Cacioppo, 1998; Smith, Cacioppo, Larsen, & Chartrand, 2003). Thus, it was hypothesized that interviewing a facially stigmatized applicant will lead to more negative affect than interviewing an applicant who is not stigmatized. Based on affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), it was also hypothesized that interviewers would display more negative behaviors toward a facially stigmatized applicant than an applicant without a facial stigma.

Hypothesis 1: Interviewing a facially stigmatized applicant will lead to more negative affect than interviewing an applicant who is not facially stigmatized.

Hypothesis 2: Interviewers will display more negative behaviors toward a facially stigmatized than an applicant who is not facially stigmatized.

Because nonstigmatized individuals often feel uncomfortable, awkward, and anxious when interacting with stigmatized individuals, the literature on stigma also suggests that stigmatized individuals are aware of the negative reactions that their stigma elicits in others (Hebl et al., 2000; Major & O’Brien, 2005). In fact, Goffman (1963) noted that stigmatized individuals tend to engage in stigma management. Strategies to control the potential negative reaction from perceivers might include disclosing or acknowledging (i.e., act of directly referring to one’s stigma during an interaction) their stigma, hiding or covering their stigma, or avoiding situations in which their stigma would elicit a negative reaction. Therefore, if an interviewer is uncomfortable and exhibits these negative reactions, those reactions are received by the applicant. A common characteristic that occurs within the interview is the degree to which the interviewer influences the process of the interview through verbal and nonverbal behaviors, and research shows that negativity from the interviewer leads to negative outcomes for the applicant (Macan, 2009; Posthuma et al., 2002).

The literature on emotion perception provides evidence that people form impressions of others on the basis of what emotional expression a person displays (Montepare & Dobish, 2003). Research shows that people can read others’ emotions and that they make judgments and find meaning from emotional expressions (Ekman, 1997). The ecological theory of social perception suggests that emotional expressions may be regarded as “expressions of approach, attack, or avoidance because they suggest how dominant or friendly a person may behave rather than simply how angry or sad a person may feel” (Madera & Smith, 2009, p. 104). Studies have found that people do make trait impressions based on emotional expressions, such as sadness, happiness, anger, disgust, and fear (Knutson, 1996; Montepare & Dobish, 2003). Therefore, if a facially stigmatized applicant elicits negative affect from an interviewer, then they are likely to attribute negative behaviors to an interviewer than when an applicant is not facially stigmatized.

Therefore, the mechanisms in which a facially stigmatized applicant would attribute negative behaviors to an interviewer are the negative affect that interviewers feel and the negative behaviors they display toward a facially stigmatized applicant. That is, if interviewers display negative affect and negative behaviors toward facially stigmatized applicants than toward nonstigmatized applicants, then these differences will be reflected in an applicant’s ratings of the interviewer behaviors. It was hypothesized that the relationship between an applicant’s facial stigma and the applicant’s rating of the interviewers’ behavior is mediated by the interviewers’ negative affect and negative behaviors.

Hypothesis 3: An applicant with a facial stigma will rate the interviewer as displaying more negative behaviors than when the applicant does not have a facial stigma.

Hypothesis 4: Interviewers’ negative affect and negative behaviors will mediate the relationship between applicant facial stigma and the applicant’s rating of the interviewers’ behavior.

Method

Participants

Forty-six graduate students enrolled in an MS/MBA Hospitality Management program participated (26 female and 20 male participants). The participants had an average of 4.37 (SD = 4.12) years with management/supervisor experience, ranging from 2 to 20 years (range = 18), and an average age of 28.22 (SD = 4.23), ranging from 24 to 53 years (range = 29).

Design and Procedure

The current study used a two-group experimental design in which participants interviewed a confederate without or with a facial stigma (i.e., a port-wine stain birthmark on the cheek). One female confederate acted as the applicant for joining the graduate program. The confederate did not know the purpose of the research, the hypotheses, or the experimental condition. To ensure the internal validity of the experiment, methods from past research examining facial stigmas in interactions were used (see Blascovich et al., 2001; Kleck & Strenta, 1980), in which makeup was applied to the confederate’s face to create a port-wine stain. Port-wine stains are birthmarks that are dark, red-to-purple discoloration and deformation of the skin that are present at birth and persist throughout life, usually darkening with time. The reason for using a port-wine stain was to be consistent with a past method and because they are often perceived as other skin conditions like eczema, psoriasis, and rosacea; all of which involve a disfigurement of the surface and color of an individual’s skin.

In the stigma condition, a cutout that was specifically constructed to fit the confederate’s face was used to apply a cream-based stage makeup to the confederate’s left cheek that was approximately 4 cm wide and 6 cm high. The makeup was specifically made to create port-wine stains. For the nonstigma condition, also using the cutout, a translucent cream was applied to the confederate’s face. The confederate was kept unaware of the condition by using the cutout, which covered her peripheral view and was 16” by 16”. This was done to assure that the confederate was consistent across conditions.

Participants were randomly assigned to a condition. On their arrival they were instructed that the purpose of the study was to examine structured interviews for graduate programs. An experimenter described the ostensible purpose of the study by saying that graduate students with management and interview experience were going to interview undergraduate, senior students who were interested in applying to the graduate program. After the cover story, participants were provided with the structured interview questions for their review and were instructed to ask all the questions in the order they appeared. The experimenter instructed the participants to introduce themselves to the interviewee, state their year in the graduate program, and begin the interview after their introduction. The interview lasted for 10 minutes.

The structured interview questions were developed from a pool of questions used by various graduate programs gathered by the university career services. Thus, the interviewers did have experience in the position the interviewee ostensibly applied for in the experiment. The confederate playing the role of the undergraduate student memorized a verbal and behavioral script for the interviews to minimize the possibility that any differences that emerged between conditions were due to the interviewees’ idiosyncratic behavior. To measure how consistent the confederate acted across the two conditions, the interviews were videotaped and her behavior was coded by three trained raters blind to the purpose of the study. The camera was placed in angle such that they could not see if the confederate had the facial stigma.

Measures

Interviewer Negative Affect

The 10-item negative affect subscale from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson et al., 1988) was used to measure negative affect. Participants were asked to respond to a set of words that describe emotions and feelings by indicating the degree to which he/she feels this way “on average.” Items were measured on a Likert-type scale anchored by 1 = very slightly or not at all and 5 = extremely.” The scale yielded a coefficient alpha of .79.

Interviewer Negative Behavior

Three trained coders, who were not aware of the purpose of the study, the hypotheses, and experimental condition, rated the behavior of the interviewers using a measure of negativity by Avery, Richeson, Hebl, and Ambady (2009). The coders rated how agitated, worried, anxious, and uncomfortable the interviewer behaved toward the confederate. A 9-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much so) was used. Adequate agreement (r_wg = .81) was established, and therefore, the coders’ responses were combined by averaging within, then across, coders resulting in a reliability coefficient of .83 for the measure.

The Applicant’s Rating of the Interviewers’ Behavior

After the interview, the confederate applicant rated the interviewer behavior also using the same measure of negativity by Avery et al. (2009) and the same response scale. The reliability coefficient was .81.

Confederate Behavior

The same three trained coders also rated the behavior of the confederate applicant to examine the consistency of the confederate behavior using the same measure of negativity (Avery et al., 2009) and response scale. Adequate agreement (r_wg = .80) was established, and therefore, the coders’ responses were combined by averaging within, then across, coders resulting in a reliability coefficient of .86 for the measure.

Manipulation Checks

Participants were asked after the end of the experiment if the applicant had a port-wine stain on her face (i.e., “yes” or “no” response scale). The confederate also responded if she had the port-wine stain or not (i.e., “yes” or “no” response scale) immediately after applying the makeup.

Results

Manipulation Checks

All the participants who interviewed the confederate with the facial stigma correctly identified the stigma and they correctly identified the absence of the stigma when she did not have the facial stigma. A chi-squared test showed that the confederate’s guess of having the port-wine stain was not significantly different to random guessing (χ² = 2.17, p > .05), suggesting that the confederate did not correctly guess she had the port-wine stain when it was applied.

An ANOVA with stigma condition (yes or no) as the independent variable and the confederate behavior ratings as the dependent variable did not reveal a significant effect of stigma condition on the confederate behavior, F(1, 45) = .59, p > .05, η² = .001 (M_yes = 3.1, SD = 1.5, and M_no = 3.4, SD = 1.3). This result suggests that the confederate behaved consistently across the two conditions. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the independent variable (i.e., applicant stigma) and the dependent variables (i.e., interviewer negative affect, interviewer negative behavior, and the confederate’s rating of the interviewers’ behavior).

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Applicant Stigma	—	—	—
2. Interviewer Negative Affect	3.23	0.59	.55*	—
3. Interviewer Negative Behavior	3.82	1.19	.48*	.43*	—
4. Applicant’s Ratings of the Interviewers’ Behavior	4.11	1.10	.32*	.44*	.46*	—

Note: Stigma was coded as follows: 1 = no, 2 = yes.

p < .05.

Test of Hypotheses

A one-way multivariate analysis of covariance with the applicant stigma (yes or no) as the independent variable and the interviewer negative affect, interviewer negative behavior, and the applicant’s rating of the interviewers’ behavior as the dependent variables was conducted to test Hypotheses 1 to 3. The participants’ years of management/supervisor experience, age, and gender were used as covariates to control for these individual differences. The results showed a significant main effect of applicant stigma on interviewer negative affect, F(1, 41) = 25.84, p < .01, η_p² = .38, such that interviewing the facially stigmatized applicant led to more negative affect (M = 3.54, SD = 0.35) than interviewing the applicant who was not facially stigmatized (M = 2.90, SD = 0.62), thereby supporting Hypothesis 1.

The results showed a significant main effect of applicant stigma on interviewer negative behavior, F(1, 41) = 11.39, p < .01, η_p² = .23, such that the interviewers displayed more negative behaviors toward the facially stigmatized applicant (M = 4.37, SD = 0.95) than toward the applicant who was not facially stigmatized (M = 3.22, SD = 1.17), thereby supporting Hypothesis 2. The results also showed a significant main effect of applicant stigma on the applicant’s rating of the interviewers’ behavior, F(1, 41) = 8.03, p < .05, η_p² = .16, such that the applicant with the facial stigma rated the interviewers as displaying more negative behaviors (M = 4.44, SD = 0.86) than when the applicant did not have a facial stigma (M = 3.73, SD = 1.23), thereby supporting Hypothesis 3.

Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) tests of the indirect effects was used to test Hypothesis 4 that the interviewers’ negative affect and negative behaviors would mediate the relationship between the applicant’s facial stigma and the applicant’s rating of the interviewers’ behavior. This mediation model examines the relationship between the predictor and the outcome measure with and without the simultaneous inclusion of the mediators. The tests of indirect effects addresses if the total effect of the predictor on the outcome variable is reduced significantly with the inclusion of the mediators. Following the recommendation of Baron and Kenny (1986), the Sobel test and Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) bootstrapped formula (with a 95% confidence interval) were conducted to examine the indirect effects.

The results for Hypothesis 4 showed that interviewing the facially stigmatized applicant led to more interviewer negative affect (β = .60, p < .05) and interviewer negative behaviors (β = .45, p < .05). Interviewer negative affect (β = .53, p < .05) and interviewer negative behaviors (β = .31, p < .05) led to higher applicant ratings of the interviewers’ negative behaviors. The direct effect between the applicant facial stigma and the applicant’s rating of the interviewers’ behavior (β = .61, p < .05) was reduced with the mediators in the model (β = .07, p > .05) and this indirect effect was significant, Z = 2.64, p < .05, with a statistically significant 95% confidence interval (.71 to .036), thereby supporting Hypothesis 4 (see Figure 1).

Discussion

Building on affective events theory, which proposes that the work environment or situations that occur at work elicit affective reactions and behaviors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), the current study examined if interviewers display negative affect and nonverbal behaviors toward facially stigmatized applicants than toward applicants who do not have a facial stigma. The results showed that interviewers felt more negative affect and displayed more negative behaviors toward a facially stigmatized applicant than an applicant who is not facially stigmatized. The interviewers’ affective reactions (i.e., their negative affect and behavior) were perceived by the applicant who in turn rated the interviewer as more negative than when the applicant did not have a facial stigma. Moreover, the coding of the interviewers’ behavior toward the applicant was consistent between the applicant and the independent coders blind to the hypotheses and conditions providing evidence of the reliability of these measures. Thus, the current research suggests that interviewers do feel and display negativity toward a facially stigmatized applicant and that a stigmatized applicant is aware of this negativity.

These results are consistent with and build on past research for three reasons. First, stigma theory (Goffman, 1963) suggests that facial stigmas make other people uncomfortable and elicits negativity because interacting with a facially stigmatized person is novel, distracting, and people usually do not have the social norms to know how to behave (e.g., to stare at it or not). For example, in a series of interview studies, Madera and Hebl (2012) found that interviewers are indeed distracted by facial stigmas during an interview. They also found that interviewers’ ratings of applicants are more negative toward facially stigmatized applicants than toward applicants who are not stigmatized. Second, the current research is consistent with affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) in that interviewing a facially stigmatized applicant was more negative than interviewing an applicant who is not stigmatized. This theory suggests that an event is first appraised in terms of the positivity or negativity, which triggers the experience of discrete emotions and the display of such emotions. The current research found that not only did the applicant rate the interviewers as more negative when she had the facial stigma, but independent coders who were not aware of the experimental conditions also rated the interviewers as more negative. Thus, the interviewers not only felt more negative affect, but they also displayed it. Third and last, these results also build upon the selection interview literature that suggests interviews are social interactions that occur between interviewers and applicants and that the interviewers’ behaviors and reactions do indeed affect the interview process (Dipboye & Collela, 2005; Posthuma et al., 2002).

It is also important to highlight the strengths of the experimental method used in the current research. For example, to balance internal and external validity, the current study used an experimental method replicated from past research (Blascovich et al., 2001; Kleck & Strenta, 1980) and used an appropriate sample that had knowledge related to evaluating a graduate school applicant in hospitality. The mundane realism of the experiment was heightened by the fact that the participants were involved in an interview in which they had expertise because the topic of the interview was focused on hospitality graduate programs. The confederate applicant had the same answers across the conditions because she used a script to answers the questions. The participants followed a structured interview so that they would ask the same questions and the confederate could follow her script. The confederate’s behavior was also consistent across the two conditions and was validated by the coders’ ratings of her behavior. The behavioral ratings of the interviewers were consistent between the coders and the confederated.

Theoretical Implications

The results address a glaring limitation to stigma theory (Goffman, 1963) by demonstrating that interacting with a facially stigmatized individual is a negative experience for both the stigmatized individual and their interactant because the stigma elicits negative affect and the displays of the negativity, which are perceived by the stigmatized individual. Negative affect and negative behavioral displays are mechanisms in which a stigma has a negative effect on dyadic interactions and why facial stigmas can bias the interview process. These results suggest that future research testing stigma theory (Goffman, 1963) should include measures of affect and other emotional responses to the stigma. A modification to Goffman’s (1963) stigma theory is to include a two-way process in which a stigma influences dyadic interactions such that the stigma elicits a negative response from the interactant, which is then perceived by the stigmatized individuals. Future research should also examine how stigmatized individuals process this negativity in terms of coping behaviors and cognitions.

Stigma theory (Goffman, 1963) suggests that interviewing a facially stigmatized applicant is a negative event because stigmas are novel, unexpected, and are an attribute or marking that are devalued characteristic. Therefore, interactions with stigmatized individuals can be negative (Blascovich et al., 2001; Hebl et al., 2000). A reason for this negativity—and particularly in selection interviews—is that the interviewer does not know how to react because social norms dictate to not stare at a stigma, but at the same time a stigma on the face commands visual attention creating a tension between social norms and the need to stare at the stigma (Madera & Hebl, 2012; Tsao et al., 2008). Yet another reason for the negativity is that stigmas prompt thoughts about the nature of the stigma (e.g., whether it is contagious, infectious, caused by an accident), which makes the interaction uncomfortable (Kurzban & Leary, 2001). Last, facial stigmas interrupt normal face processing, so they are difficult to avoid or to ignore, generating tension for the interactant (Cohen, 1998; Johnson et al., 1991; McKone et al., 2007).

Theoretically, these results can also be understood within the affective events theory framework (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). As hypothesized, the results suggest that interviewing a facially stigmatized applicant is a negative event for the interviewer. The interviewers’ appraisal of this event was negative when compared with interviewing a nonstigmatized applicant and this negativity was manifested as both feelings (i.e., negative affect) and behaviors (i.e., the coded negative behaviors). Interviewing the facially stigmatized applicant triggered the experience of discrete emotions and the display of such emotions. The current research, however, advances the affective events theory (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), because the results suggest that the emotion is perceived by the stigmatized individual, which could also elicit an emotional response as well. Therefore, future research examining affective events theory (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) should also examine how elicited affect from one employee can elicit emotional responses from other employees or applicants.

Another theoretical implication of the current study is that the applicant was aware of the affect that the interviewer displayed. This is particularly important because research shows that interviewer behavior can help or hinder applicant performance in the interview (Posthuma et al., 2002). However, past research has not examined an applicant’s stigma as a source that can influence an interviewer’s affect. The results show that an applicant’s facial stigma can potentially hinder their performance because the interviewer is more likely to feel and display negative affect toward the applicant. These results might be particularly important for the hospitality industry, which emphasizes physical looks and physical attractiveness (Groschl, 2007; Nickson et al., 2005; Ruetzler et al., 2012). Because physical attractiveness is a factor that is used to assess applicants in the hospitality industry (Tews et al., 2009; Tews et al., 2010), a facial stigma might lead to more salient effects (i.e., the negative affect and behavior) than it would for occupations that do not require customer interactions or that emphasized the physical looks of applicants.

Practical Implications

The current study showed that interviewers feel and display negative affect toward facially stigmatized applicants. This suggests that facially stigmatized applicants can face biases or discrimination in interviews, which can have a negative impact on hospitality organization for several reasons. First, the selection interview is a two-way street in that applicants also assess the organization, such that applicants are less attracted to organizations that have selection systems that are perceived negatively (Rynes & Cable, 2003). For example, research shows that organizational attractiveness is lower when applicants perceive they have been treated unfairly by biased questions and treatment (Truxillo, Steiner, & Gililand, 2004).

Second, biases against applicants can lead to dismissing qualified applicants who would otherwise be effective employees for the organization. In particular, the negative bias displayed toward the facially stigmatized applicant might also be because the hospitality industry values the physical attractiveness of employees (Groschl, 2007; Kusluvan et al., 2010; Tews et al., 2009). Third, it is imperative for interviewers to focus on job-related information to make selection decisions that are based on reliable and valid methods rather than on intuition or stereotypes of what a good employee looks like (Madera, 2013; Madera & Abbott, 2012). Fourth and last, applicants perceiving discrimination or biases in the selection interview can also lead to legal complaints (Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993). This is particularly important because some skin conditions and facial disfigurements may be covered under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Even if the facial stigma is not a disability that limits major life activities, the 2008 amendment to the ADA now protects applicants and employees who are treated differently because they are regarded as having a disability (Segal, 2010). Thus, it is an organization’s best interest to minimize discrimination against facially stigmatized applicants.

A practical recommendation for the interviewing process includes having interviewers focus on the hygiene and professional attire of applicants rather than the physical attractiveness of the applicant. This recommendation is of particular importance for the hospitality industry, which emphasizes employees’ looks because employees are the primary service providers (Nickson et al., 2005; Tews et al., 2009; Tews et al., 2010). By focusing on hygiene and professional attire, interviewers can avoid dismissing qualified applicants on account of physical imperfections or stigmas that do not hinder their performance of the essential functions of the job.

Another practical recommendation is for interviewers to focus on job-related information to make selection decisions that are based on reliable and valid methods (Madera & Abbott, 2012). For example, using blind interviews or those conducted via the telephone might abate the negative bias that stigmas elicit and require interviewers to focus on job-related questions rather than on the physical looks. Another possible strategy to minimize the negative bias or discrimination that facially stigmatized applicants might receive is to train the interviewers to write notes and to focus on what is said rather than on the looks. Last, an additional effective recommendation is using structured interviews—predetermined questions for every applicant in the same order—because they are one of the most effective methods of predicting job performance while reducing biases based on physical characteristics (Madera & Abbott, 2012). By using structured interviews that focus on job-related information, managers will be making hiring decisions based on validity and will reduce biases against people who have facial stigmas.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the theoretical and practical implication that the current study offers, it is important to note the limitations that might be addressed by future research. Although the participants were graduate students with management and interviewing experience, they were responding to a hypothetical interview. To maintain mundane realism, they were informed that they were participating in mock interviews to help develop structured interviews for the graduate programs. Despite this, future research might address this limitation by examining how interviewers in industry settings handle facial stigmas and the extent to which a facial stigma can interfere with their evaluations of an applicant.

The current study used a confederate who—despite being unaware of having a facial stigma or not—was able to consistently rate interviewers as more negative when she did have a stigma. Although this suggests and is consistent with the notion that stigmatized people are aware of the negativity their stigma elicits, it is also important to note that the stigma was manipulated. That is, the applicant was only stigmatized for a temporary time. Future research might address this limitation by surveying people with facial stigmas about their experiences in interviews, including if they receive negativity because of their stigma. Research might also examine if they use strategies to minimize how their stigma affects them.

Although physical looks and physical attractiveness are emphasized in the hospitality industry (Groschl, 2007; Nickson et al., 2005; Ruetzler et al., 2012), suggesting that many facial stigmas may lead to similar results, the use of one type of facial stigma is another potential limitation and direction for future research. Though there are common characteristics of stigmas, not all stigmas are the same. The process in which a stigma affects the interview process might depend on the type of stigma. Theoretically, one of the reasons that a facial stigma like a port-wine stain led to more negative affect and displays of negativity toward the applicant is the fact that a port-wine stain is novel and unexpected and also violates expectations of physically attractive faces. Acne, however, is more common and might not be perceived as a novel facial feature that draws negative attention; instead, depending on the severity of the acne, an interviewer might not attend to it or not notice it because it is so common. In fact, stigma theory (Goffman, 1963) suggests that the reactions toward a stigma depends on the visibility and novelty of it, such that a facial stigma that is common, such as acne, may not lead to as negative reactions as a facial stigma like a port-wine stain.

Last, another potential limitation and direction for future research is that this research did not measure individual differences that might influence reactions to a facially stigmatized applicant. For instance, perceived vulnerability to disease is a personality measure that is related to aversion to people who have physical anomalies and it does influence how one reacts to people with a physical stigma (Thompson & Kent, 2001). In addition, some stigmas like facial disfigurements are often feared because they are perceived to be contagious (Major & O’Brien, 2005). Another individual difference is the disgust sensitivity of an individual, that is, the degree to which individuals feel disgust toward certain objects or entities (Rozin, Haidt, McCauley, Dunlop, & Ashmore, 1999). Sensitivity to disgust and fear of disease are highly variable from person to person. For example, some may find a facial deformity more disgusting than other people, and therefore, the same stigma might elicit different levels of negativity (Haidt, McCauley, & Rozin, 1994).

Conclusions

Although the selection interview is one of the most widely used and researched methods for selecting employees, it is not free from biases. As shown in the current research, applicants who have stigmas do face discrimination. The current research offers important theoretical and practical insights into the influence of a facial stigma on interviewers’ affect and behavior. The results were consistent with affective events theory (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and stigma theory (Goffman, 1963) in that interviewing a facially stigmatized applicant is a negative event for the interviewer who elicits negative affect and behaviors. In addition, the applicant was aware of the negative affect that the interviewer displayed. Thus, it is incumbent on hospitality organizations and interviewers to minimize potential biases that are elicited by physical stigmas, because the main goals of the interview are to gain job-related information about the applicant and make valid evaluations of the applicant (Dipboye, 2005). Taken together, the results of the current study suggest that understanding how stigmas affect interviews is a dynamic process that involves a social interaction in which physical stigmas influence the interviewers’ affect, which is evident to the applicant. The results have clear implications for conducting interviews in the hospitality industry, in that blind procedures, such as a telephone conference, might be more appropriate methods than face-to-face methods.

Footnotes

Juan M. Madera (e-mail: jmmadera@uh.edu) is an assistant professor in the Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, University of Houston, Houston, TX.

References

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Hartel

C. E. J.

Daus

C. S.

(2002). Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organizational behavior research. Journal of Management, 28, 307-338.

Avery

D. R.

Richeson

J. A.

Hebl

M. R.

Ambady

(2009). It does not have to be uncomfortable: The role of behavioral scripts in Black-White interracial interactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1382-1393.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1173-1182.

Blascovich

Mendes

W. B.

Hunter

S. B.

Lickel

Kowai-Bell

(2001). Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 253-267.

Brief

A. P.

Weiss

H. W.

(2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Larsen

J. T.

Smith

N. K.

Berntson

G. G.

(2004). The affect system: What lurks below the surface of feelings? In Manstead

A. S. R.

Frijda

N. H.

Fischer

A. H.

(Eds.), Feelings and emotions: The Amsterdam conference (pp. 223-242). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Campion

M. A.

Campion

J. E.

Hudson

J. P.

(1994). Structured interviewing: A note on incremental validity and alternative question types. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 998-1002.

Campion

M. A.

Palmer

D. K.

Campion

J. E.

(1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50, 655-703.

Chathoth

P. K.

Mak

Jauhari

Manaktola

(2007). Employees’ perceptions of organizational trust and service climate: A structural model combining their effects on employee satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31, 338-357.

10.

Cohen

L. B.

(1998). An information-processing approach to infant perception and cognition. In Simion

Butterworth

(Eds.), The development of sensory, motor, and cognitive capacities in early infancy: From perception to cognition (pp. 277-300). East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.

11.

Crocker

Major

Steele

(1998). Social stigma. In Gilbert

Fiske

S. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 4). Boston: McGraw-Hill, pp. 504-553.

12.

Dipboye

R. L.

(1997). Structured selection interviews: Why do they work? Why are the underutilized? In Anderson

Lodsl

P. H.

(Eds.), International handbook of selection and assessment (pp. 455-475). New York, NY: Wiley.

13.

Dipboye

R. L.

(2005). The selection/recruitment interview: Core processes and contexts. In Evers

Anderson

Smit-Voskuijl

(Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of personnel selection (pp. 121-142). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

14.

Dipboye

R. L.

Colella

(2005). Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

15.

Ekman

(1997). Should we call it expression or communication? Innovations in Social Science Research, 10, 333-344.

16.

Gazzoli

Hancer

Park

(2010). The role and effect of job satisfaction and empowerment on customers’ perception of service quality: A study in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 34, 56-77.

17.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

18.

Groschl

(2007). An exploration of HR policies and practices affecting the integration of persons with disabilities in the hotel industry in major Canadian tourism destinations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 666-686.

19.

Guion

R. M.

(1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decision. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

20.

Haidt

McCauley

Rozin

(1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 701-713.

21.

Hebl

M. R.

Mannix

L. M.

(2002). The weight of obesity in evaluating others: A mere proximity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 28-38.

22.

Hebl

M. R.

Tickle

Heatherton

T. F.

(2000). Awkward moments in interactions between nonstigmatized and stigmatized individuals. In Heatherton

Kleck

Hebl

Hull

(Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 275-306). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

23.

Ito

T. A.

Larsen

J. T.

Smith

N. K.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 887-900.

24.

Johnson

K. K. P

Roach-Higgins

M. E.

(1987). Dress and physical attractiveness of women in job interviews. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 5, 1-8.

25.

Johnson

M. H.

Dziurawiec

Ellis

Morton

(1991). Newborns’ preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline. Cognition, 40, 1-19.

26.

Kleck

R. E.

(1969). Physical stigma and task-oriented interaction. Human Relations, 19, 425-436.

27.

Kleck

R. E.

Strenta

(1980). Perceptions of the impact of negatively valued physical characteristics on social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 861-873.

28.

Kim

H. J.

(2008). Hotel service providers’ emotional labor: The antecedents and effects on burnout. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 151-161.

29.

Kim

H. J.

Tavitiyaman

Kim

W. G.

(2009). The effect of management commitment to service on employee service behaviors: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33, 369-390.

30.

King

E. B.

Shapiro

J. L.

Hebl

M. R.

Singletary

Turner

(2006). The stigma of obesity in customer service: A mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 579-593.

31.

Knutson

(1996). Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 165-182.

32.

Krendl

A. C.

Macrae

C. N.

Kelley

W. M.

Fugelsang

J. A.

Heatherton

T. F.

(2006). The good, the bad, and the ugly: An fMRI investigation of the functional anatomic correlates of stigma. Social Neuroscience, 1, 5-15.

33.

Kurzban

Leary

M. R.

(2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187-208.

34.

Kusluvan

Ilhan

Buyruk

(2010). A review of the human resources management issues in the tourism and hospitality industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51, 171-214.

35.

Langer

E. J.

Fiske

Taylor

S. E.

Chanowitz

(1976). Stigma, staring, and discomfort: A novel-stimulus hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 451-463.

36.

S. Z.

Jain

A. K.

(2005). Handbook of face recognition. New York, NY: Springer Science.

37.

Macan

(2009). The employment interview: A review of current studies and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 203-218.

38.

Madera

J. M.

(2013). Best practices in diversity management in customer service organizations: An investigation of top companies cited by Diversity Inc. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54, 124-135.

39.

Madera

J. M.

Abbott

(2012). The diversity-validity dilemma: implications from the Ricci v. DeStefano U.S. supreme court case. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53, 31-39.

40.

Madera

J. M.

Hebl

M. R.

(2012). Discrimination against facially stigmatized applicants in interviews: An eye tracking and face-to-face investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 317-330.

41.

Madera

J. M.

Smith

B. D.

(2009). The effects of leader negative emotions on evaluations of leadership: The role of anger and sadness. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 103-114.

42.

Major

O’Brien

L. T.

(2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393-421.

43.

McKone

Kanwisher

N. K.

Duchaine

B. C.

(2007). Can genetic expertise explain special processing for faces? Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 8-15.

44.

Mooney

K. M.

Cohn

E. S.

Swift

M. B.

(1992). Physical Distance and AIDS: Too Close for Comfort? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(18), 1442-1452.

45.

Montepare

J. M.

Dobish

(2003). The contribution of emotion perceptions and their overgeneralizations to trait impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26, 237-254.

46.

Nickson

Warhurst

Dutton

(2005). The importance of attitude and appearance in the service encounter in retail and hospitality. Managing Service Quality, 15, 195-208.

47.

Payne

R. L.

Cooper

G. L.

(2001). Emotions at work. New York, NY: Wiley.

48.

Posthuma

R. A.

Moregeson

F. P.

Campion

M. A.

(2002). Beyond employment interview validity: A comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time. Personnel Psychology, 55, 1-81.

49.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

50.

Rozin

Haidt

McCauley

Dunlop

Ashmore

(1999). Individual differences in disgust sensitivity: Comparisons and evaluations of paper and pencil versus behavioral measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 330-351.

51.

Ruetzler

Tayler

Reynolds

Baker

Killen

(2012). What is professional attire today? A conjoint analysis of personal presentation attributes. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 937-943.

52.

Rynes

S. L.

Cable

D. M.

(2003). Recruitment research in the twenty first century. In Borman

W. C.

Ilgen

D. R.

Klimoski

R. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 55-76). New York, NY: Wiley.

53.

Segal

J. A.

(2010, June). ADA game changer: Avoid 10 common mistakes in the reasonable accommodation process. HR Magazine, 121-125.

54.

Smith

N. K.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Larsen

J. T.

Chartrand

T. L.

(2003). May I have your attention, please: Electrocortical responses to positive and negative stimuli. Neuropsychologia, 41, 171-183.

55.

Smither

J. W.

Reilly

R. R.

Millsap

R. E.

Pearlman

Stoffey

R. W.

(1993). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49-77.

56.

Tews

M. J.

Stafford

Tracey

(2010). What matters most? The perceived importance of ability and personality for hiring decisions. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52, 94-101.

57.

Tews

M. J.

Stafford

Zhu

(2009). Beauty revisited: The impact of attractiveness, ability, and personality in the assessment of employment suitability. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 92-100.

58.

Thompson

Kent

(2001). Adjusting to disfigurement: Processes involved in dealing with being visibly different. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 665-682.

59.

Truxillo

D. M.

Steiner

D. D.

Gilliland

S. W.

(2004). The importance of organizational justice in personnel selection: Defining when selection fairness really matters. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(1-2), 39-53.

60.

Tsao

D. Y.

Moeller

Freiwald

W. A.

(2008). Comparing face patch systems in macaques and humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 19514-19519.

61.

Warhurst

Nickson

(2007). Employee experience of aesthetic labour in retail and hospitality. Work, Employment & Society, 21(1), 103-120.

62.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

63.

Weiss

H. M.

Cropanzano

(1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.