Are Spectacles the Female Equivalent of Beards for Men? How Wearing Spectacles in a LinkedIn Profile Picture Influences Impressions of Perceived Credibility and Job Interview Likelihood

  • Sarah F. van der LandEmail author
  • Lotte M. Willemsen
  • Suzanne A. J. Unkel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9191)


This study builds on our previous work on beardedness [1] and explores whether wearing spectacles in a LinkedIn profile picture affects a female candidate’s prospects of being invited for a job interview and whether this is contingent on the type of job vacancy. Results of a 2 (spectacle use: spectacles versus no spectacles) × 3 (job type: expertise, trustworthiness, attractiveness) experiment conducted among 139 participants show that bespectacled candidates are perceived as having more expertise and –to our surprise- also being more attractive than candidates not wearing spectacles. Moreover, a candidate’s perceived credibility is a significant predictor of the intention to invite the candidate for a job interview. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.


Personal branding Strategic social media Impression management Recruitment Spectacles Credibility Job interview success LinkedIn 


  1. 1.
    Van der Land, S., Muntinga, D.G.: To shave or not to shave? In: Nah, F.F.H. (ed.) HCIB 2014. LNCS, vol. 8527, pp. 257–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kluemper, D.H., Rosen, P.A.: Future employment selection methods: evaluating social networking web sites. J. Manag. Psychol. 24(6), 567–580 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaiken, S.: Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39(5), 752–766 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Schumann, D.: Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. J. Consum. Res. 10(2), 135–146 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walther, J.B.: Computer mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun. Res. 23(1), 3–43 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ohanian, R.: Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. J. Advertising 19, 39–52 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goffman, E.: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday, New York (1959)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guido, G., Peluso, A.M., Moffa, V.: Beardedness in advertising: Effects on endorsers’ credibility and purchase intention. J. Mark. Commun. 17(1), 37–49 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edwards, K.: Effects of sex and spectacles on attitudes toward intelligence and attractiveness. Psychol. Rep. 60, 590 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thornton, G.R.: The effect upon judgments of personality traits of varying a single factor in a photograph. J. Soc. Psychol. 18, 127–148 (1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Labrecque, L.I., Markos, E., Milne, G.R.: Online personal branding: processes, challenges, and implications. J. Interact. Mark. 25(1), 37–50 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duck, S.W.: Interpersonal communication in developing acquaintance. In: Miller, G.R. (ed.) Explorations in Interpersonal Communication, pp. 127–148. Sage, Beverly Hills (1982)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang, S.S., Moon, S.I., Kwon, K.H., Evans, C.A., Stefanone, M.A.: Face off: implications of visual cues on initiating friendship on Facebook. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26(2), 226–234 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caers, R., Castelyns, V.: LinkedIn and Facebook in Belgium: the influences and biases of social network sites in recruitment and selection procedures. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dougherty, T.W., Turban, D.B., Callender, J.C.: Confirming first impressions in the employment interview: a field study of interviewer behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 79(5), 659 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hum, N.J., Chamberlin, P.E., Hambright, B.L., Portwood, A.C., Schat, A.C., Bevan, J.L.: A picture is worth a thousand words: a content analysis of Facebook profile photographs. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(5), 1828–1833 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Utz, S.: Show me your friends and i will tell you what type of person you are: how one’s profile, number of friends, and type of friends influence impression formation on social network sites. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 15(2), 314–335 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C.: The benefits of Facebook “friends:” socialcapital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 12, 1143–1168 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tong, S.T., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., Walther, J.B.: Too much of a good thing? The relationship between number of friends and interpersonal impressions on Facebook. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 13, 531–549 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leder, H., Forster, M., Gerger, G.: The spectacles stereotype revisited. Swiss J. Psychol. 70(4), 211–222 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Terry, R.L., Krantz, J.H.: Dimensions of trait attributions associated with eyespectacles, men’s facial hair, and women’s hair length. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 23(21), 1757–1769 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cochrane, L.: Glasses – the latest must-have accessory. In: The Guardian. Accessed 31 Oct 2012
  23. 23.
    Tschorn, A.: Eyeglasses a new fashion essential? In: Los Angeles Times. Accessed 29 Apr 2012
  24. 24.
    Argyle, M., McHenry, R.: Do spectacles really affect judgments of intelligence? Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 10, 27–29 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Acker, S.R., Levitt, S.R.: Designing videoconference facilities for improved eye contact. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 31(2), 181–191 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bayliss, A.P., Tipper, S.P.: Predictive gaze cues and personality judgments: should eye trust you? Psychol. Sci. 17, 514–520 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lundberg, J.K., Sheehan, E.P.: The effects of spectacles and weight on perceptions of attractiveness and intelligence. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 9, 753–760 (1994)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Terry, R.L., Hall, C.A.: Affective responses to eye spectacles: evidence of a sex difference. J. Am. Optom. Assoc. 60, 609–611 (1989)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harris, M.R.: Sex differences in stereotypes of spectacles. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21, 1659–1680 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Woodside, A.G., Davenport, J.W.: The effect of salesman similarity and expertise on consumer purchasing behavior. J. Mark. Res. 11(2), 198–202 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pornpitakpan, C.: The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades’ evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34(2), 243–281 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    NSMBL: nsmbl x specsavers de leukste brilmonturen gecombineerd met 5 verschillende kapsels. Accessed 21 Jan 2014
  33. 33.
    Mesko, N., Bereczkei, T.: Hairstyle as an adaptive means of displaying phenotypic quality. Hum. Nat. 15(3), 251–270 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jackson, W.C., Bendick, M., Romero, H.J.: Employment discrimination against older workers. J. Aging Soc. Policy 8(4), 25–46 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reis, H.T., Maniaci, M.R., Caprariello, P.A., Eastwick, P.W., Finkel, E.J.: Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101(3), 557–570 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wilson, E.: The return of the interview suit. In: The New York Times. Accessed 12 Nov 2008
  37. 37.
    Grimaldi, L.: The job hunt: Part 3 acing the interview. Meet. Conventions 67–68 (2010)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Martin, W.W., Gardner, S.N.: The relative effects of eye-gaze and smiling on arousal in asocial situations. J. Psychol. 102(2), 253–259 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1975)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cunningham, M.R.: Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50(5), 925–935 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zebrowitz, L.A.: Reading faces: Window to the soul? Westview Press, Boulder (1997)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kleinke, C.L.: Gaze and eye contact: a research review. Psychol. Bull. 10, 78–100 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shepherd, I.D.: From cattle and coke to Charlie: meeting the challenge of self marketing and personal branding. J. Mark. Manage. 21(5–6), 589–606 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A.N., Goren, A., Hall, C.C.: Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science 308, 1623–1626 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Field, A.: Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah F. van der Land
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lotte M. Willemsen
    • 2
  • Suzanne A. J. Unkel
    • 3
  1. 1.Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.GoogleDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations