Content uploaded by Mikki Hebl
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mikki Hebl on Jul 16, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Making Those Who Cannot See Look Best: Effects of Visual Resume
Formatting on Ratings of Job Applicants With Blindness
Katie Wang
Rice University
Laura G. Barron
University of Wisconsin, Stout
Michelle R. Hebl
Rice University
Objective: Although general attitudes toward individuals with disabilities are often positive, these
perceptions do not always lead to equal footing in the hiring process. This study examined stereotypes
of job applicants perceived to be blind and the role of applicant blindness in hireability ratings made by
human resource managers. Specifically, we highlighted a unique challenge for individuals who cannot
see: the visual formatting of resumes. Design: Human resource managers (N⫽249) evaluated the
visually formatted or unformatted resumes of hypothetical job applicants who were portrayed as blind or
sighted and rated applicant hireability and personality characteristics. Results: Although applicants
perceived to be blind were perceived as more conscientious and agreeable by human resource managers,
these positive evaluations did not translate into favorable hireability evaluations. Conclusion: Because
human resource managers severely penalize applicants who do not attend to visual, nonfunctional resume
presentation, applicants who cannot see are apt to find themselves disadvantaged in the hiring process.
The implications of these findings for organizations, job seekers, and rehabilitation professionals are
discussed.
Keywords: disability, blindness, bias, discrimination, applicant
Historically, individuals with disabilities always have been an
underrepresented group in the workforce. Although the Americans
With Disabilities Act of 1990 has significantly facilitated the
inclusion of individuals with disabilities in the workplace, the
unemployment rate is still nearly twice as high among individuals
with disabilities than among the general population (Stone &
Colella, 1996). Unfortunately, people with disabilities, especially
those with blindness, have received very little attention in the
workplace literature. The present study, therefore, aimed to con-
tribute to this limited knowledge base by investigating the question
of how individuals with blindness are perceived by prospective
employers and the role that visual presentation of their credentials
plays in initial evaluations of hireability.
How Do Employers Evaluate Persons Perceived
To Be Blind?
Although research that specifically addresses the perceptions of
visually impaired individuals is lacking, the stigmatization litera-
ture has provided substantial evidence regarding attitudes toward
job applicants with other disabilities, suggesting that such percep-
tions are typically ambivalent. On the one hand, empirical evi-
dence consistent with the “norm-to-be-kind” hypothesis supports
the idea that individuals with blindness might receive more posi-
tive hireability evaluations than their sighted counterparts. Defined
as the social pressure to act charitably toward those less fortunate
(Hastorf, Northcraft, & Picciatto, 1979), the norm-to be-kind gov-
erns many aspects of behavior toward people with disabilities. For
example, in the laboratory, nondisabled participants consistently
provide unrealistic positive feedback in response to the below-
average performance of individuals with physical disabilities (Has-
torf et al., 1979; Miller & Werner, 2005). Similarly, hypothetical
job applicants with physical disabilities are rated higher in consci-
entiousness and agreeableness, as well as activity and potency
relative to matched nondisabled applicants (Bell & Klein, 2001;
Louvet, 2007).
On the other hand, further evidence challenges this straightfor-
ward proposition. Managers tend to hold unfounded negative ex-
pectations about the skills of workers with disabilities as well as
their future performance (Jones, 1997; Ren, Paetzold, & Colella,
2008; Stone & Colella, 1996). Hence, although people may praise
individuals with disabilities, such targets are less likely than a
nondisabled target to be chosen as a partner on an assigned task
even after previous task performance between targets with and
without disabilities has been equated (Colella, DeNisi, & Varma,
1998). Similarly, although job applicants with disabilities are rated
more highly than matched nondisabled applicants on many per-
sonal characteristics, applicants with disabilities are rated as less
Katie Wang and Michelle R. Hebl, Department of Psychology, Rice
University; Laura G. Barron, Department of Psychology, University of
Wisconsin, Stout.
Katie Wang is now at the Department of Psychology, Yale University.
Katie Wang and Laura G. Barron contributed equally to this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michelle
R. Hebl, PhD, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, MS 205, Houston, TX
77005. E-mail: hebl@rice.edu
Rehabilitation Psychology
2010, Vol. 55, No. 1, 68–73
© 2010 American Psychological Association
0090-5550/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0018546
68
competent (Louvet, 2007). These ambivalent findings parallel
those found for other stigmatized groups such as women: Although
those in power may readily give praise to members of the disad-
vantaged groups, allocation of valued resources often does not
accompany positive feedback (Biernat & Vescio, 2002; Vescio,
Gervais, Snyder, & Hoover, 2005). One of the strengths of the
current study is that we investigated both ratings of personal
characteristics (praise) and direct ratings of hireability (allocation
of resources).
Differences in Evaluation of Individuals With
Differing Disabilities
Members of stigmatized groups are often targets of prejudice
and discrimination, and reactions toward these individuals can
vary significantly on the basis of the causal attributions and nature
of the stigma in question (Menec & Perry, 1998; Rush, 1998).
Specifically, origin (controllability) and peril have emerged as two
of the most important factors in determining attitudes toward
particular stigmas. On the basis of these dimensions, it is reason-
able to infer that blindness, as a nonthreatening impairment with
perceived uncontrollable onset, might be viewed more favorably
than many other disabilities. Indeed, among the various prejudices
that people seek to suppress under the pressure of social norms,
prejudice toward individuals with blindness is rated as substan-
tially less acceptable than prejudice toward other stigmatized
groups, such as obese or mentally ill targets, and even less accept-
able than prejudice toward typically nonstigmatized groups such as
White people (Crandall, Eshleman, & O’Brien, 2002). Therefore,
perceptions of individuals who are blind may represent a “best
case” for individuals with disabilities.
As such, in this study we investigated whether, even for indi-
viduals with a disability for which there are particularly strong
norms to be kind, positive evaluations can translate into favorable
hiring outcomes. Our first objective was to determine whether
applicants with blindness receive more favorable personality rat-
ings than their sighted counterparts. We focused on the Big Five
personality characteristics for comparability within the personality
literature and because of the documented relationship between the
Big Five traits and performance across jobs (Barrick & Mount,
1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Our second objective was to
determine whether these favorable personality ratings would trans-
late into enhanced hireability ratings of applicants with blindness
relative to sighted applicants.
Are Visually Appealing Resumes Beneficial
to Applicants?
Although attitudes toward applicants with disabilities generally
can provide a basic foundation from which to infer perceptions
toward applicants with blindness, we also highlight a challenge
that puts those who cannot see at a unique disadvantage: the visual
formatting of resumes.
1
Resume screening is a near universal
initial step in the hiring process, and job applicants’ resumes may
be judged on more than the content (i.e. education, experience,
skills) listed. Research shows that when the content of the resumes
is controlled, applicants with chronological-style resumes receive
higher hireability ratings than those with functional-style resumes,
suggesting that presentation style of resumes does have a signifi-
cant influence on employers’ hiring evaluations (Ryland & Rosen,
1987; Toth, 1993). Building on these results, we investigated
whether the visual formatting of resumes (e.g., font and page
layout aesthetics) can similarly affect employers’ evaluations.
Advancements in assistive technology have enabled blind indi-
viduals to perform most tasks on the computer effectively and
independently using a wide range of screen-reading programs
(e.g., Freedom Scientific’s JAWS, Dolphin’s Supernova, GW Mi-
cro’s Window-Eyes), including some with integrated Braille dis-
plays. Such software programs enable users without sight to access
mainstream computer applications and word processors through
synthetic speech. Despite these advances, many job seekers with
blindness still require some sighted assistance in preparing visually
appealing resumes. Specifically, although most screen readers can
identify the spacing, font, and other formatting elements, individ-
uals who cannot see may need sighted assistance to determine
what is visually attractive because they cannot actually see the
document’s layout. In addition, simple tasks such as visually
checking that all items are aligned and indented properly can
become cumbersome when relying on nonvisual means. Notably,
some job applicants who cannot see might be unaware of the
importance of formatting or reluctant to seek sighted assistance for
fear of appearing helpless. As such, applicants with blindness may,
despite equivalent qualifications, find themselves disadvantaged in
the hiring process to the extent that human resource managers base
their hiring judgments on visual (nonfunctional) resume presenta-
tion.
Method
Participants
To obtain a sample with real-world hiring experience, human
resource managers were recruited via e-mail through the Society of
Human Resource Management, the largest professional association
for human resource managers worldwide. We were able to obtain
contact information online for 353 of 575 local chapters in the
United States, of which 22% agreed to distribute the invitation to
their members, resulting in a total of 249 volunteer participants (55
men, 188 women, six unspecified) with a mean of 14.48 years
(SD ⫽8.38) of working experience in a human resources capacity.
Our sample included human resource managers working in all four
U.S. regions: 14.1% West, 20.0% Midwest, 21.6% Northeast, and
44.3% South. The majority of participants (55.9%) were employed
by private, for-profit organizations, although 24.5% were em-
1
For the purposes of this article, we refer to individuals who are legally
blind. We recognize that visual formatting may also pose related challenges
for individuals with visual impairments who maintain partial sight. How-
ever, the challenges for this group may be somewhat easier to overcome
independently given that individuals with partial sight can rely at least
partially on screen magnification software (e.g., Dolphin’s Supernova
software combines screen magnification with screen reading and Braille
displays) to actually see visual cues such as font and layout aesthetics in
some form when necessary. Hence, although attending to these visual cues
is more cumbersome than for fully sighted individuals, some notion of the
“look” of a font or page layout is still possible for individuals with visual
impairments who are not legally blind.
69
BLINDNESS AND RESUME FORMAT
ployed by government organizations, and 19.6% were employed
by nonprofit organizations. By race, 89.8% of our participants
identified as White, 5.3% Black, 1.6% Hispanic, 1.6% Native
American, 0.4% Asian, and 1.2% other.
Design
The present study featured a 2 (visually formatted vs. unformat-
ted resume) ⫻2 (blind vs. sighted applicant) between-subjects
design, with ratings of applicant hireability and personality char-
acteristics as the dependent variables. The online questionnaire
consisted of four hypothetical resumes (three fillers to prevent
participants from suspecting the true nature of the study and a
target resume from one of the four experimental conditions) and
ratings associated with each resume.
Independent variables. The manipulation of blindness was
conveyed through a slight change of wording across conditions:
The applicant with blindness listed working experience at the
“Division of Blind Services” and membership in the “National
Blind Student Association”; the sighted control reported com-
parable experience working at the “Division of Human Ser-
vices” and membership in the “National Student Association.”
Resume format was manipulated by modifying the spacing and
attractiveness of the fonts; specifically, the visually formatted
version was prepared using 10-point Lucida Sans Unicode font,
with indented and bolded headings, whereas the unformatted
version was composed in plain text using 12-point Times New
Roman font without indentations or other visually formatted
elements (i.e., centering, bullets, alignment). For realism in
creating the resume formatting manipulation, we compared
those visual elements that were found in resume templates
available from multiple university career centers with the re-
sume of a blind college student that was created without sighted
assistance (see Figures 1 and 2).
Dependent variables. To assess human resource managers’
perceptions of applicant personality characteristics, we used the Ten-
Item Personality Inventory (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003),
which consists of five pairs of adjectives corresponding to the Big
Five personality traits. We used this scale because of its brevity and
ease of understanding. We measured hireability using a three-item,
7-point hireability scale, adapted from Rudman and Glick (2001; ␣⫽
.91): “I would interview this applicant for an entry-level management
position,” “I would consider hiring this applicant for an entry-level
management position,” and “I would personally hire this applicant for
an entry-level management position.”
Procedure
All participants were sent a link to the survey after agreeing to
take part in the study. They were first presented with a cover story
regarding the historical use of convenience samples of undergrad-
uate students as research participants and were told that the study
Figure 1. Visually unformatted resume stimulus materials.
70 WANG, BARRON, AND HEBL
aimed to examine differences in how human resource profession-
als and undergraduate students evaluate the work and academic
experiences of job candidates. Participants were told that they
would be presented with the resumes of four hypothetical gradu-
ating college seniors, and that they would be asked to infer the
personality characteristics of the applicants and evaluate their
suitability for a typical entry-level management position. Partici-
pants then were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental
conditions on the basis of their answers to the following question:
“In which season were you born?” For each resume presented, they
were asked to rate the applicant using the personality and hireabil-
ity scales previously described. In addition, they were asked to
judge the extent of visual formatting on a four-item, 7-point scale
(␣⫽.95; sample item: “This is a well-formatted resume”). Before
submitting the survey, all participants were asked whether they had
noticed that one of the applicants was blind using a checklist of
seven stigmas (i.e., blindness, deafness, gay or lesbian), which
served as a check for the manipulation of blindness. The online
survey did not allow participants to return to previous pages of the
survey to change their earlier responses.
Results
Manipulation Checks
As expected, participants judged the visually formatted resume
to be significantly more visually appealing than the unformatted
resume, t(247) ⫽15.97, p⬍.001. Specifically, the formatted
version of the target resume received a mean rating of 4.29 (SD ⫽
1.23) on a Likert scale with 1 ⫽very poorly formatted and 7 ⫽
very well formatted. In contrast, the visually unformatted version
received a mean rating of 1.97 (SD ⫽1.06).
Also as expected, significantly more participants in the blind-
ness condition perceived the applicant to be blind relative to those
in the nonblind condition,
2
(1) ⫽38.52, p⬍.001, and no
Figure 2. Visually formatted resume stimulus materials.
71
BLINDNESS AND RESUME FORMAT
participant in the nonblind condition reported perceiving the ap-
plicant as blind.
Perceptions of Blind Applicants
We began by testing the idea that applicants perceived to be
blind (vs. sighted) would be rated as possessing more favorable
personality characteristics. Indeed, applicants perceived to be blind
were rated as more conscientious, t(148) ⫽2.50, p⫽.01, d⫽
0.41, agreeable, t(148) ⫽2.75, p⬍.01, d⫽0.45, extraverted,
t(148) ⫽2.16, p⬍.05, d⫽0.36, and open to experience, t(148) ⫽
2.91, p⬍.01, d⫽0.48, than applicants perceived to be sighted.
However, despite the importance of these personality characteris-
tics for job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Don-
ovan, 2000), there were no significant differences found in the way
that participants evaluated applicants perceived to be blind versus
sighted on hireability ratings, t(151) ⫽1.04, ns.
Effect of Visually Appealing Resumes
We next tested the idea that visually appealing resumes enhance
the employers’ perceptions of job applicants beyond objective
qualifications. Sighted applicants with formatted resumes, relative to
those with unformatted resumes, were judged to be more conscien-
tious, t(114) ⫽3.80, p⬍.001, d⫽0.71, more agreeable, t(114) ⫽
2.00, p⬍.05, d⫽0.37, more emotionally stable, t(114) ⫽2.28, p⬍
.05, d⫽0.43, more open to experience, t(114) ⫽2.34, p⬍.05, d⫽
0.44, and more hireable, t(117) ⫽2.43, p⫽.02, d⫽0.45. Notably,
these advantages were not limited to the sighted applicants. Like their
sighted controls, among applicants perceived to be blind, those with
formatted resumes were rated as more conscientious, t(125) ⫽2.03,
p⫽.04, d⫽0.36, more emotionally stable, t(126) ⫽2.78, p⬍.01,
d⫽0.50, more open to experience, t(126) ⫽2.24, p⬍.01, d⫽0.40,
and more hireable, t(127) ⫽3.33, p⫽.001, d⫽0.59. Visual format
did not, however, affect perceived agreeableness, t(126) ⫽1.40, ns.
Discussion
The present study examined employers’ perceptions of job
applicants with blindness in the initial credential evaluation pro-
cess. We contribute to the research literature on individuals with
disabilities by showing that even for those individuals with a
disability for which particularly strong norms to avoid prejudice
exist (Crandall et al., 2002), favorable general attitudes do not
translate into equal opportunity for qualified applicants with blind-
ness in hireability evaluations made by organizational decision
makers.
Consistent with findings on other groups with disabilities (Bell
& Klein, 2001; Louvet, 2007), the personal characteristics of
applicants perceived to be blind were rated more favorably than
matched sighted applicants. Human resource managers rated ap-
plicants perceived to be blind as more agreeable, more conscien-
tious, more extraverted, and more open to experience than sighted
applicants with equivalent qualifications. However, these positive
evaluations were not accompanied by more favorable hireability
ratings. Consistent with past research (Biernat & Vescio, 2002;
Vescio et al., 2005), even hypothetical allocation of valued re-
sources did not accompany positive feedback toward members of
a disadvantaged group.
Rather, applicants with blindness face a unique challenge. Re-
sume screening is a near universal initial step in making hiring
decisions, and our results show that human resource managers
attend significantly to the visual format of resumes rather than
content (qualifications) alone. Despite various assistive technology
tools (e.g., screen-reading software), applicants with blindness still
cannot see the “look” or aesthetics of resume font and layout, and
may require sighted assistance to attend to visual cues. As many
who cannot see may not be aware of the importance placed on
document formatting or may be reluctant to seek help from others
for fear of appearing dependent, even with equal qualifications,
applicants with blindness are apt to find themselves disadvantaged
in the job-seeking process. This news may be unsettling for indi-
viduals with blindness who are trying to navigate much bigger
issues.
From the perspective of employers, these findings suggest the
need for standardized applications that can be screened for objec-
tive qualifications without penalty for visual cues. Online applica-
tion blanks in html can be readily completed with the use of screen
readers, allowing blind applicants equal footing in the initial
screening process. From the perspective of vocational rehabilita-
tion professionals working with individuals with blindness, these
findings suggest that counselors should focus more on conveying
the importance of document formatting and other visual self-
presentation skills to their clients and provide necessary training to
help those who cannot see better understand how they may be
evaluated by sighted individuals. As long as visual formatting
remains a major consideration in the hiring process, career work-
shops that provide sighted assistance and feedback in the specific
formatting elements of resume preparation might be very helpful
for job seekers with blindness.
Although the current study has extended research on job seekers
with disabilities to include applicants with blindness, some ques-
tions remain unanswered. First, we note that our findings likely
reflect a “best case” scenario for applicants with blindness. Al-
though we did employ many measures, including a realistic cover
story and filler resumes to minimize the social desirability bias, our
participants may have responded differently if faced with blind
employees in the particular context of their own organizations.
That is, human resource managers in our study may have reacted
similarly to participants in previous research, which shows that
expressed attitudes are much more favorable than behavioral con-
comitants directed toward individuals with disabilities (see Hastorf
et al., 1979; Kleck, Ono, & Hastorf, 1966).
Future research using resume correspondence testing in field
settings (e.g., Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004) would contribute to
our understanding of how visual impairment affects one’s per-
ceived suitability for employment. Furthermore, previous research
has shown that disability–job fit often moderates hireability out-
comes. We used an entry-level management job to allow for
common familiarity and expertise by our sample, but studies that
assess the perception of individuals with blindness seeking em-
ployment in other professions might be extremely valuable. In
addition, future studies could examine whether the relationship
between visual format cues and hireability is moderated by quality
of applicant credentials. Perhaps most important, empirical re-
search is also needed to better understand the factors that may
72 WANG, BARRON, AND HEBL
contribute to the reluctance of individuals with blindness to seek
sighted assistance as needed during the job-seeking process.
In summary, this research offers a solid starting point in inves-
tigating perceptions toward a largely unstudied group of disabled
applicants. We extend general research on applicants with disabil-
ities by showing that even for those with a disability for which the
strongest norms to be kind exist (Crandall et al., 2002), more
favorable perceptions of personal characteristics do not translate
into equal opportunity for qualified applicants with blindness in
the credential evaluation process. Rather, we show that human
resource managers’ reliance on visual format cues in resume
screening is apt to disadvantage applicants with blindness, which
highlights the need for changes in how employers screen appli-
cants’ qualifications.
References
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimen-
sions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,
1–26.
Bell, B. S., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Effects of disability, gender, and job
level on ratings of job applicants. Rehabilitation Psychology, 46, 229 –
246.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more
employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market
discrimination. American Economic Review, 94, 991–1013.
Biernat, M., & Vescio, T. K. (2002). She swings, she hits, she’s great, she’s
benched: Implications of gender-based shifting standards for judgment
and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 66 –77.
Colella, A., DeNisi, A. S., & Varma, A. (1998). The impact of ratees’
disability on performance judgments and choice as partner: The role of
disability–job fit stereotypes and interdependence of rewards. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 102–111.
Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the
expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359 –378.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A verby brief
measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37, 504 –528.
Hastorf, A. H., Northcraft, G. B., & Picciotto, S. R. (1979). Helping the
handicapped: How realistic is the performance feedback received by the
physically handicapped? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5,
373–376.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance:
The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869 – 879.
Jones, G. E. (1997). Advancement opportunity issues for persons with
disabilities. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 55–76.
Kleck, R. E., Ono, H., & Hastorf, A. H. (1966). The effects of physical
deviance upon face-to-face interaction. Human Relations, 19, 425– 436.
Louvet, E. (2007). Social judgment toward job applicants with disabilities:
Perception of personal qualities and competences. Rehabilitation Psy-
chology, 52, 297–303.
Menec, V. H., & Perry, R. P. (1998). Reactions to stigmas among Canadian
students: Testing an attribution–affect– help judgment model. Journal of
Social Psychology, 135, 443– 453.
Miller, B. K., & Werner, S. (2005). Factors influencing the inflation of task
performance ratings for workers with disabilities and contextual perfor-
mance ratings for their coworkers. Human Performance, 18, 309 –329.
Ren, L. R., Paetzold, R. L., & Colella, A. (2008). A meta-analysis of
experimental studies on the effects of disability on human resource
judgments. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 191–203.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and
backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.
Rush, L. (1998). Affective reactions to multiple social stigmas. Journal of
Social Psychology, 138, 421– 430.
Ryland, E. K., & Rosen, B. (1987). Personnel professionals’ reactions to
chronological and functional resume formats. Career Development
Quarterly, 35, 228 –238.
Stone, D. L., & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting the
treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 21, 352– 401.
Toth, C. (1993). Effect of resume format on applicant selection for job
interviews. Applied Human Resource Management Research, 4, 115–
125.
Vescio, T. K., Gervais, S. J., Snyder, M., & Hoover, A. (2005). Power and
the creation of patronizing environments: The stereotype-based behav-
iors of the powerful and their effects on female performance in mascu-
line domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 658 –
672.
Received June 29, 2009
Revision received September 30, 2009
Accepted November 15, 2009 䡲
73
BLINDNESS AND RESUME FORMAT
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Rehabilitation Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.