Wiki Page, Multicultural Diversity in the Workplace for the Tourism Professional: Topic 2 Personal/Physical Appearance Stigmatizing in the Workforce-3

Wiki Page
2021-08-30T22:16:45+08:00

Halo / Horns Effect

Stigma vs Discrimination

Examples of Physical Discrimination

Prevention of Physical Discrimination

Halo / Horns Effect

According to a study done by researchers Kenneth Dion, Ellen Berscheid, and Elaine Walster at the University of Minnesota: Humans are more likely to associate positive personality traits with people who are physically attractive. Individuals are judged according to the way they look as human nature dictates.

Another research done at the University of Colorado Denver states that the way a woman looks defines whether or not she will be successful in a specific field of work.

Is appearance really important in a person's performance and social relatioship with his/her coworkers? Why is personal / appearance can be stigmatizing in the workplace? Watching the video below will give you and overview of the topic.

A type of cognitive bias in which our overall impression of a person influences how we feel and think about his or her character is called Halo Effect. As coined by Edward Thorndike, Halo Effect expresses that perceptions of a single trait can carry over to how people perceive other aspects of that person.

Physical appearance is often a major part of the halo effect. Hence Halo Effect is also something referred to as the 'physical attractiveness stereotype' and the 'what is beautiful is also good' principle. People who are considered attractive tend to be rated higher on other positive traits as well. The opposite of Halo Effect is Horns Effects wherein employers develop a steady distaste for an employee that doesn’t look appealing.

First impressions dictate how a person, or an object or service, is valued. As early as the job applications, the aspirants are more likely to feel the impact of the halo effect. When a probable employer views the applicant as attractive or likable, they are more likely to also rate the individual as intelligent, competent, and qualified and vice versa. This is appearance-based hiring.

Empirical evidence suggests that in the context of employment decision-making, the more attractive a person, the more likely she is to be hired and the more highly she will be paid. Style of dress had a consistent influence on interviewers' perceptions of employability. Appropriate dress had greater impact on judges' evaluations of potential for hire than physical attractiveness.

From an economic standpoint, employers have incentives to hire based on physical appearance. With the belief that appearance does affect a customer's perception of the company and its products or services so thus appearance affects an employer's judgment about the qualifications of a particular employee. It is a marketing technique which recommends that appearance is more important than other more significant factors, such as "academic, career, or personal accomplishments.” This scenario propagates society's obsession with looks.

Halo effect is also one of the most common biases affecting performance appraisals and reviews. A worker's enthusiasm or positive attitude may overshadow their lack of knowledge or skill, causing co-workers to rate them more highly than their actual performance. Supervisors may rate subordinates based on the insight of a single characteristic rather than the whole of their performance and contribution. People tend to assess a person’s individual traits based on their opinion of one trait. A boss could mistakenly consider all of the subordinate’s traits to be positive if he or she finds a subordinate’s appearance to be desirable.

Physical attractiveness has a positive effect not only on an individual's self-confidence but also on their overall income and financial well-being. The more good-looking a person is perceived, the more highly the employee will be paid. Thus physical appearance has an impact on income. Attractive food servers earn approximately $1,200 more per year in tips than their unattractive counterparts, according to a study published in the Journal of Economic Psychology.

From hiring to evaluation, there are physical appearance biases that may not be evident but undeniably taking place in the workplace. Join the discussion, to know more about the impact of Halo Effect in the workplace.

Click Me

Stigma vs Discrimination

Yes, appearance is not important to an employee's ability to perform most jobs. But, under current law, employers are free to use such criteria when making hiring decisions.

Such policies are "arbitrary, irrational, and unfair, as they harm society by affirming certain appearance-related stereotypes and biases. Employment decisions influenced by appearance most especially if unrelated to performance of actual job is problematic and eventually lead to physical discrimination.

Physical discrimination refers to unequal, unfair treatment of people because of their physical appearance. This includes behaviors directed toward an individual that depict inequitable treatment with no justifiable cause. Discrimination is distinct from stigma and negative attitudes.

Stigma can emerge in subtle forms, or it can be expressed directly to a person. It includes attitudes manifested by negative stereotypes toward an individual.

Stigma includes:

Verbal teasing (e.g., name calling, derogatory remarks, being made fun of, etc.)

Physical aggression (e.g., hitting, kicking, pushing, shoving, etc.)

Relational victimization (e.g., social exclusion, being ignored, avoided, or the target of rumors).

Examples of Physical Discrimination

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone in the workplace because of their physical appearance such as height, weight, body shape, disfigurement, skin condition, scar or birthmark, even tattoos and piercings.

Participate in the discussion, to have a broader perspective of the various examples of physical discrimination in the workplace.

Click Me

Tattoos and body piercings have become highly prevalent over the past few decades. A Pew Research study found that people ages 18 to 29 have a 40 percent chance of having a tattoo. Tattoos are deemed as unique form of expression and important part of a person’s identity. They are considered significant indicating one’s individual expression. Despite of these, there are negative stereotypes surrounding any form of body art and tattoos can negatively affect the chances of getting someone hired.

Tattoos are often seen as rebellious, irresponsible and unprofessional. There are various types of workplace policies that discriminate against people with tattoos. Employers may not hire someone just because of their tattoos, or make them cover them with long-sleeve shirts or bandages.

Tattoo discrimination would directly affect ethnic minority groups because they are more likely to have body ink. Reports show that 38 percent of Hispanics have tattoos and 28 percent of African Americans do, while only 22 percent of Caucasian people do.

Tattoos that are merely a form of self-expression, nevertheless, shouldn’t deprived someone of employment opportunities. It is only understandable why tattoo would affect someone’s ability to get a job if a person’s tattoos are offensive.

Individuals with excess weight or obesity are vulnerable to negative bias, prejudice and discrimination in many different settings such as workplace, educational institutions, healthcare facilities and even in interpersonal relationships.

In North American culture, weight bias remains very socially acceptable. It is rarely challenged and frequently ignored. However, thousands of individuals with obesity are at risk for unfair treatment, and there are few outlets available to provide support or protection. Research has shown that overweight workers get paid significantly less than workers who are considered an average weight. This wage discrepancy is even larger for female workers.

Obesity discrimination is prevalent even in the different settings. Overweight are being denied a job promotion or fired from a job because of one’s weight. They are also being denied certain medical procedures or provided inferior medical care because of their weight. Sometimes, they are being deprived of a scholarship, a bank loan or prevented from renting or buying a home also because of their weight.

Height discrimination in the workplace is also happening. Short people face prejudice which contributes to unfair hiring and promotion practices, compensation discrepancies and the general failure to take short people seriously. The study revealed that person’s height had a correlation with their salary.
Managers and co-workers instinctively believe short people to be less mature, less positive, less secure, less masculine (in the case of males), less successful, less capable, less confident and less outgoing. Short people who display confidence and leadership qualities are often referred to as “little dictators” or “little tyrants” in an attempt to belittle and minimize their influence. When a short person is described as a brilliant or strategic leader, people tend to be surprised. They are expected to behave like children: quiet and obedient.Wrong expectations make people uncomfortable and leads to inappropriate responses.

Prevention of Physical Discrimination

Discrimination can be prevented in workplace by educating all your workers about discrimination. If all employees are socially aware of the negative consequences of discrimination to a person, they will be more cautious of their actions and behavior towards their coworkers. Workers must be encouraged to respect each other’s differences and respond to any evidence or complaints of inappropriate behavior.

The management must be serious in their commitment of preventing discrimination in the workplace. They have to deal with any complaints of discrimination promptly and confidentially and develop a workplace policy that prohibits discrimination. Policies must be reviewed regularly to ensure that its effectiveness is maintained.

Moreover, supervisors and managers must be trained on how to respond to discrimination in the workplace. They have to make sure the workplace policy is properly enforced.

To know more about the legal obligations for employers, supervisors and workers in harrassment and discrimination in the workplace, watch the video.

There are also specific exceptions where discrimination because of physical features may be permitted including situations where it is reasonably necessary to protect the health, safety or property of any person (including the person discriminated against). In dramatic, artistic, entertainment, photographic or modelling performances or work, an employer may offer employment only to a person with particular physical features (including ‘looks’). Participation in competitive sport may be lawfully limited to people who can effectively compete.