Journal of Business Communication

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Order Full text via Infotrieve
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bird, C. P.
Right arrow Articles by Puglisi, D. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 23, No. 3, 31-39 (1986)
DOI: 10.1177/002194368602300303
© 1986 Association for Business Communication

Method of Resumé Reproduction and Evaluations of Employment Suitability

Charles P. Bird

The Ohio State University at Mansfield

Dawn D. Puglisi

The Ohio State University at Mansfield

Personnel professionals and college undergraduates evaluated the credentials of job candidates whose résumés had been reproduced under four distinct conditions: professionally typeset and printed on tan paper; professionally printed on high-quality white paper but taken from a camera-ready typed original; photocopied on a high quality, clean machine; and photocopied on a poor quality, somewhat dirty machine. Professionals judged an individual more negatively when a poor photocopy was presented and showed modest preferences for the professionally prepared résumés over the good photocopy. Students' evaluations, how ever, did not differ reliably as a function of the four methods of reproduction. Implications of this difference in the reactions of students and professionals are discussed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?