The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1044-4068.htm

IJCMA
32,2 Disability and influence in
job interviews
Mason Ameri
Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
266
Terri Kurtzberg
Received 24 April 2020 Department of Management and Global Business, Rutgers Business School,
Revised 12 June 2020
29 July 2020
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
Accepted 3 August 2020
Lisa Schur
Department of Labor Studies and Employment Relations, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, and
Douglas Kruse
School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This purpose of this paper is to explore to efficacy of influence tactics at the outset of a job
interview. Across three empirical studies, five influence tactics were manipulated during a simulated job
interview to explore first impressions for candidates with or without a visible disability.
Design/methodology/approach – Participants viewed videos of candidates (either in a wheelchair or not)
responding to the opening question in a job interview by using one of five influence tactics (i.e. revealing a strong
alternative, setting a numerical anchor, demonstrating approachability through imperfections, presenting hard
skills that described job-related competencies or presenting soft skills including connecting well with and leading
others). Perceptions of trustworthiness, fit for the current job and perceived appropriate salary amount were rated.
Findings – Results show that, in general, tactics that might have beneficial effects when used at later
moments, including the use of a strong alternate, anchor or imperfection display, may instead harm first
impressions of anyone. When discussing specific skills, hard skills helped in both cases. However, the
presentation of soft skills helped only the non-disabled job candidate. Trustworthiness acted as a mediator for
most of these relationships in both populations.
Originality/value – Results provide insight into how the use of these tactics very early in an interaction unfolds.
Further, parsing the use of influence tactics into their effects on specific populations (such as people with disabilities)
allows us to better understand the conditions under which they may help or hurt perceptions of employability.
Keywords Influence, Disability, First impressions, Job interviews, Tactics
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Being able to influence others can be seen as essential for success (Malhotra and Bazerman,
2008). While this is true in general, perhaps, nowhere is this more important than in one of

International Journal of Conflict

The author thank the Rutgers Business School and the School of Management and Labor Relations at
Management Rutgers University for their financial support of this research, and Sanghoon Kang, Daniel Levin,
Vol. 32 No. 2, 2021
pp. 266-291 Oliver Sheldon and Alex Van Zant for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
© Emerald Publishing Limited Funding: Funding was provided by Rutgers Business School and the School of Management and
1044-4068
DOI 10.1108/IJCMA-04-2020-0070 Labor Relations at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
the most consequential settings: interviewing and negotiating for a job. These outcomes can Job interviews
have a lasting impact on career earnings far past the moment itself, especially for starting
salaries early in one’s career (Gerhart and Rynes, 1991). While scholars have long recognized
that influence tactics (statements and actions designed to align others’ perceptions with an
intended perspective) are critical elements, they have not taken the next step to uncover
what, specifically, needs to be said and done to best set the stage in terms of how particular
tactics might improve job interview outcomes. Choosing how to present oneself at the
beginning of a first interview is the de facto first move in the job negotiation process. It
267
allows the employer to then decide, is this person worthy of a job offer? And at what value?
In this paper, we explore the first few moments of a job interview and measure how the
influence tactics used set the stage for the ensuing negotiation.
In addition, research has not addressed how this process may differ for those in
stigmatized populations. Much research on bias and stereotypes has indicated that cues to
people’s differences can inspire unfavorable snap judgments, such as the race and gender
biases that appear in various negotiations (Ayres et al., 2015; Bowles et al., 2007; Ayres and
Siegelman, 1995). It is important to know not just what works, but how it works for specific
populations. This research will thus explore applicants both with and without disabilities.
First impressions are critical in all interactions, and certainly no less so in job
negotiations. We make snap judgments regularly, and these initial impressions can have
lasting effects, favorable or otherwise. In negotiations more generally, research has been
able to identify outcome effects that are based solely on impressions made in the first 5 min
in terms of linguistic styling (e.g. the level of conversational engagement) (Curhan and
Pentland, 2007). Some of these initial judgments are potentially biased by the strong
tendency people have to form personality-based conclusions from behavioral cues (Morris
et al., 1999), making it that much more important to manage these first few minutes well.
Consistent with other work on attribution errors, even when encouraged to appreciate the
situational influences on behavior (i.e. being directed to consider whether there is a good
reason why someone might be asking for a lot in this negotiation), people instead
consistently jump to the conclusion that the behavior is reflective of who the person is, in
terms of traits. In fact, even when people do appreciate that there might be situational
constraints causing particular behavior, they still make personality-based attributions
alongside the situational attributions (Morris and Larrick, 1995), further demonstrating how
persistent these personal attributions can be. Other work has discussed the importance of
establishing trust in these critical first few moments, and the more significant damage that
trust-destroying behavior early in an interaction can cause (Lount et al., 2008). Given the
outsized effect that initial impressions can have on outcomes in a negotiation, this is a
critical window to explore how influence tactics should be used to maximize the potential
gain available from this specific moment (Cialdini, 1993).
Within the context of examining whether initial judgments can be offset by influence
tactics (thereby improving perceptions of employability and pay), it is of particular interest
to explore if this could be true for people with disabilities. For this population, first
impressions are particularly fraught with bias. Historically, the employment levels of
working-age people with disabilities have remained lower than those of their non-disabled
counterparts (Ameri et al., 2018). This is not necessarily due to people with disabilities being
unable to effectively perform the jobs in question, but is at least in part based on
discrimination that stems from initial (stereotypical) impressions. Numerous studies have
supported this model by reporting lower social acceptability ratings, lower pay rates and
fewer employment opportunities for people with disabilities (Baldwin and Johnson, 2006;
Ren et al., 2008; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008; Stone and Colella, 1996; Ameri et al., 2018).
IJCMA These outcomes stem from both “taste-based discrimination” (Becker, 1957), in which those
32,2 without disabilities have a strong preference for those who are similarly non-disabled and
“statistical discrimination,” where people with disabilities are stereotyped as capable of
some things but not others (Phelps, 1972). For example, in one study, some employers
reported that people with disabilities would be weaker at solving problems (Lengnick-Hall
et al., 2008).
268 Which influence tactics set the right tone for getting the job? Our arguments for which
tactics will be more or less beneficial rest on the interaction with the fact that, when used as
a first impression, the more relevant question is which tactics will generate the buy-in
needed to allow for advancement to the next stage of the job negotiation process. Anecdotal
evidence from myriad platforms advising candidates on job interview skills such as
monster.com (Kaufman, 2020; Mann, 2018; Auerbach, 2018) confirm that discussing salary,
skills, personal strengths and weaknesses and other opportunities does happen very early in
the process, and has an outsized effect on the impressions of the employer, as they then
proceed to seek later information to confirm these early presumptions (Sasidharan, 2019).
Each of these are discussed below, and their potential effects on impression making are then
analyzed for each the able-bodied and disabled populations.

Best alternative to a negotiated agreement, anchoring and imperfections as

first impressions
Research has clearly demonstrated that having a strong best alternative to a negotiated
agreement (BATNA) gives one more power and is likely to help lead to stronger deals (Kim
and Fragale, 2005). This can happen through several possible mechanisms, on both internal
and external dimensions. Perhaps, just knowing of a strong BATNA (e.g. an alternative
offer when negotiating for a job) makes it easier to engage in negotiations to then ask for a
higher amount. There is evidence that this does happen in job negotiations (Gerhart and
Rynes, 1991).
On the other hand, it is possible to disclose the BATNA to the other side. Typical advise
in negotiations is to keep information about BATNA private, as it could limit the amount
offered by the opponent (Lax and Sebenius, 1986; Kim et al., 2005). For example, if a job
candidate reveals a standing offer from a competing employer for $68,000, the current
employer would now be unlikely to offer a salary of $79,000, even if that might have
otherwise been possible. However, even without stating a numerical competing offer,
reference to the fact that other offers are forthcoming can trigger a positive response. Indeed,
others recommend sharing this information about a strong BATNA, both to activate the
effects of social proof (e.g. “if other people are interested in this job candidate, it must be a
signal of great value”) and of scarcity (e.g. “this person will get quickly hired by someone
else if we do not act fast,” or “if this person takes another offer, it will leave us without a
good choice”). This tactic could drive up the job candidate’s perceived value through both
implied threat and increased appeal. Revealing a BATNA can also potentially display
honesty and transparency with the other side (e.g. when employees share news of outside
employment opportunities with a current boss, in an advise-seeking manner) (Cialdini, 1993;
Gino and Moore, 2008; Goldfarb, 2019).
Classic research in negotiations has demonstrated the effectiveness of setting an anchor
or being the first one to state a number in the negotiation. Anchors function by drawing the
other side toward that initial number, which often results in final agreements being slanted
in this direction (Bazerman and Neale, 1992; Mason et al., 2013). In settings ranging from
insurance offerings to the asking prices on goods (e.g. sticker prices on cars) to requests
made for time or resources (Guthrie and Orr, 2006, for a review), the first offer made has
been shown to have a direct and beneficial influence on subsequent counteroffers and final Job interviews
agreements. This is because of four possible mechanisms (Guthrie and Orr, 2006; Strack and
Mussweiler, 2003; Tversky and Kahneman, 1974):
(1) “social implications theory,” which describes how the information provided in the
initial anchor is seen as reasonable and just, and is thus relied upon for deciding on
acceptable counteroffers and final judgments;
(2) the “insufficient adjustment bias,” which describes how people get cognitively 269
stuck on the first number and fail to remove its impact, even when trying to stretch
further away from it;
(3) “numeric priming theory,” which describes how the vividness of a specific number
impedes the ability to erase it; and
(4) “information accessibility theory,” which describes how the initial piece of
information obstructs access to any other information on the topic, especially as
the initial information is already assumed to be valid.

Demonstrating imperfections can be used to influence others because it serves to humanize

oneself (Aronson et al., 1966), elicit sympathy (Shirako et al., 2015) and make one seem more
approachable. For example, one study reports that a person with high ability, who might
otherwise appear as “too good” and impersonal, becomes more accessible once they have
made a mistake, such as spilling a cup of coffee (Aronson et al., 1966). Even when presenting
information to persuade others, research has shown that leading with the weaknesses of the
argument or the item (e.g. “our product is not able to do these things”) is more effective than
leading with positive features only. This works both because it serves to air or pre-empt the
natural counter-arguments that receivers might have formed and makes the speaker seem
more trustworthy (Cialdini, 1993).
Although there may be room to effectively use these tactics (i.e. sharing a strong
BATNA, setting a number anchor or showing imperfections) later in the process of
negotiating, they may limit the potential for an immediate sense of goodwill when they are
introduced at the outset. Regarding employment interviews, these tactics used too soon
could, thus, serve to give negative impressions of trustworthiness and instead give the
impression that the job candidate is a “disruptive negotiator” (Tinsley et al., 2008) and is
risky in some way. They could appear as too aggressive for an early-stage interaction, and
perhaps, prove harmful instead of helpful for a job candidate in an interview, regardless of
whether that candidate is able-bodied or disabled. As a result, we hypothesize:

H1. Presenting a BATNA in the earliest stage of a job interview will result in negative
job evaluations for all populations.
H2. Presenting an anchor in the earliest stage of a job interview will result in negative
job evaluations for all populations.
H3. Presenting imperfections in the earliest stage of a job interview will result in
negative job evaluations for all populations.

Hard skills and soft skills

It is common for a job interview to open with a general question along the lines of, “tell me
about yourself.” This invitation is an opportunity for candidates to select the most effective
portrayal of themselves by signaling their expertize. Making declarative statements about
job skills displays confidence, and research has shown that this is strongly associated with
IJCMA judgments of competence (Anderson et al., 2012; Price and Stone, 2004). Thus, influence
32,2 tactics that are aimed at demonstrating specific strengths should generally be persuasive at
this stage.
In the particular case of job candidates, expertize could be communicated by describing
the possession of “hard skills,” which signal the mastery of specific skills that a job requires
(e.g. coding skills for a software development job). Alternately, they could emphasize their
270 “soft skills,” which include temperament and other interpersonal traits in working with
people. Depending on the job, these soft skills may also be of great value in a job candidate.
For the able-bodied candidate, we hypothesize that both statements of hard and soft skills
can be beneficial for positive impressions of job-fit.

H4a. Presenting expertize in relevant hard skills will result in positive job evaluations
within the able-bodied population.
H5a. Presenting expertize in relevant soft skills will result in positive job evaluations
within the able-bodied population.
However, for the disabled population, the utilization of these two types of statements may
come across differently. Recent work has established a more nuanced appreciation for the
common stereotypical reactions that people hold toward those with disabilities (Louvet et al.,
2009). Instead of a purely negative view of those with disabilities, it seems that people are
more likely to consider this population to be warm, but less likely to be competent (Fiske
et al., 2002). The attribution of warmth and not competence seems to provoke pity and a
higher likelihood of discrimination (Fiske et al., 2002; Bayle, 2002). This is especially likely in
cases where people with disabilities apply for supervisory jobs with competence ratings that
predict favorable hiring outcomes (Louvet, 2007).
The next question is whether employer reactions could be offset through the use of
influence tactics by improving perceptions of competence and decreasing bias. In other
words, given the common perception that people with disabilities are less likely to be seen as
competent and employable, is it possible that specific statements of aptitude might help
offset this bias? Indeed, in employment, it has been reported that those in high-status groups
are more likely to favor low-status group members when they portray relatable traits, such
as competence (Jost and Burgess, 2000). Other studies have confirmed that out-group
members can become somewhat but not fully affiliated with the in-group based on the
recognition of shared traits, and so this common ground can improve the employment
outcomes of people with disabilities (Cuddy et al., 2007).
The research is clear: warmth alone is not sufficient for positive hiring outcomes for
people with disabilities and the presumption of lower competence seems to be the critical
element for withholding job offers. In support of this, researchers have theorized that being
able to come across as highly competent, potentially even in the absence of warmth, could
result in greater likelihoods of employment success (Mørch and Stalder, 2003). Given this,
we assert that especially for this population, the demonstration of hard skills (i.e. signals of
competence) will be of critical importance. In contrast, statements of soft skills (i.e. signals of
warmth) will instead play into widely-held stereotypes and impede hiring success.
Therefore, we hypothesize that while the tactics of discussing BATNA, anchoring or
presenting imperfections will still have negative effects and discussing hard skills will still
have positive effects, we expect that the presentation of soft skills will lead to unfavorable
job outcomes in this case.
 H4b. Presenting expertize in relevant hard skills will result in positive job evaluations Job interviews
within the disabled population.
H5b. Presenting expertize in relevant soft skills will result in negative job evaluations
within the disabled population.

Trustworthiness 271
Finally, like other elements of first impressions, trustworthiness is a dimension on which
people are known to form very rapid conclusions. Referred to as the “swift trust” response
(Meyerson et al., 1996), it seems that people are capable of forming a decision on
trustworthiness quickly, and verifying it later as more information becomes available. It
seems that this instinct has very utilitarian roots, as it allows people to move forward with
positive judgments and interactions in very short order. Furthermore, these judgments are
known to have great influence over the behavioral aspects of trust, such as the amount that
people are willing to be vulnerable with others, identify with others, cooperate with others
and extend themselves to achieve positive benefits for others (Rousseau et al., 1998; Platow
et al., 2012; Colquit et al., 2007). Indeed, perceptions of trustworthiness have been shown to
be a relevant and highly-correlated precursor to trust behaviors, and because this is known
to have a strong impact on job performance outcomes in particular (Colquit et al., 2007), we
expect judgments of trustworthiness to be relevant here as well. Because hiring decisions
are the launch of a potentially long-term relationship, the element of trustworthiness is all
the more important in this context. In other words, the tactics presented by job candidates
may influence the decisions of trustworthiness that get formed in the minds of observers.
Trustworthiness, in turn, is likely to play a role in the evaluations made about relevant job
outcomes.

H6. Trustworthiness will mediate the relationships between tactics and job evaluations
for all populations.

Study 1: able-bodied population

Methodology
Participants and design. Participants included 858 individuals recruited from MTurk who
were paid for their contribution. All participants were over 18 years of age and the vast
majority were at least college-educated and were employed at the time of the study. The
design is a randomized experiment with a between-subjects design, in which participants
each viewed a single 30-s video in which a job candidate engaged in one of five influence
tactics [1].
Procedure. Participants first read a job description for a “project manager” role, which
stated clearly that both hard skills (i.e. analytical) and soft skills (i.e. leadership) were
required of the successful job candidate (Appendix 1 for full job description). The order of
whether candidates read about the hard skills or the soft skills first was counterbalanced to
ensure that no priming effects were created. Participants were then informed that they
would watch a 30-s video [2] in which a job candidate responded to the opening question of
an interview, which was “so tell me why you would like this job.” Participants were then
randomly assigned to observe a single video. In each video, the candidate first answered the
question of why they would like the job by identifying both their previous experience and
desire for a new challenge. Then, the candidate proceeded with one of the five influence
tactics of interest in this study (Appendix 2 for details on the tactics presented in each video).
IJCMA After viewing the video, participants completed a survey to gauge their impressions of the
32,2 job candidate, as described below.
Measures. After viewing the single video, participants were asked to rate their
perceptions of the job candidate’s employability for this job on a 100-point scale through the
question, “if you were the employer, how much do you think this person should get the job
offer?” Participants were then asked about what salary figure the job candidate should be
272 awarded (if offered the job), on a scale from $50,000 to $65,000 (numbers that were roughly
based on the national average pay for this role at the entry level at the time, according to
salary.com). Finally, participants were asked to provide their perceptions of the
trustworthiness of the job candidate through a five-item measure, which was adapted from
existing scales (Cummings and Bromiley, 1996, a = 0.858), including items on whether the
job candidate was thought to be reliable, trustworthy, would keep their word, would meet
obligations and would not mislead others (reverse-coded). All items and procedures were
pilot-tested on a separate sample of 175 participants, who provided feedback about the
clarity of the process and the wording of the items.
Results. Please see Tables 1 and 2 for descriptive statistics and correlations for Study 1.
A series of linear regressions explored the effects of each tactic in question on each of the
two dependent variables. These included the participants’ judgment of the job candidate’s

Mean (0–100 scale) 95% confidence 95% confidence

(in thousands of interval – lower interval –
Tactic DV* dollars) SD bound upper bound

BATNA 1 57.68 21.30 52.84 62.51

2 58.18 3.54 57.37 59.00
Anchoring 1 55.90 24.30 50.53 61.41
2 58.62 3.93 57.73 59.52
Table 1. Imperfection 1 59.30 23.79 53.98 64.63
Study 1 descriptive 2 56.49 4.27 55.54 57.45
statistics for Hard skills 1 76.28 17.79 72.29 80.26
2 58.58 3.82 57.73 59.44
employability and Soft skills 1 74.38 17.05 70.51 78.25
pay by tactic for 2 57.92 4.15 56.98 58.86
able-bodied
population Notes: *DV1 = Employability, DV2 = Pay

Variable Employability Pay Trustworthiness

Employability –
Pay 0.43** –
Trustworthiness 0.54** 0.22** –
Table 2. BATNA
0.15** 0.026
0.13**
Study 1 correlations Anchor
0.18** 0.061
0.093**
Imperfection
0.13**
0.11**
0.076*
with tactics, mediator Hard skill 0.13** 0.058 0.11**
and dependent Soft skill 0.10** 0.006 0.13**
variables for able-
bodied population Notes: N = 859. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
employability for the job on the 100-point scale and the decision on how much the job Job interviews
candidate should be paid if offered the job [3]. In support of H1, those participants who saw
the job candidate mention having another job offer (i.e. statement of BATNA) were rated as
significantly lower on the employability item (B =
11.21, p = 0.001). In support of H2,
participants who saw the candidate anchor with a salary number were also rated as
significantly lower on the employability item (B =
13.16, p = 0.000). H3 was similarly
supported, demonstrating that revealing an imperfection in these early moments of a job
interview was associated with significantly lower ratings of employability (B =
9.44, p =
273
0.000). Conversely, both the use of describing hard skills (B = 9.25, p = 0.000) and soft skills
(B = 7.14, p = 0.004) were each associated with higher ratings on employability, thus
supporting H4a and H5a.
With regard to the ratings of potential pay, the only relationships to emerge were a
negative effect of displaying an imperfection (B =
1.49, p = 0.002), and marginal positive
effects of stating an anchor (B = 0.85, p = 0.075) or stating hard skills (B = 0.81, p = 0.087).
These provide some additional support for H3 and H4a and some counter evidence for H2,
in that there might be some potential benefit from stating an anchor. See Table 3 for full
regression reports.
In addition, to explore the role of the potential mediating relationship of trustworthiness,
we first determined the correlations between the tactics and the trustworthiness scale.
Trustworthiness was significantly related to each of the five tactics, as follows: BATNA (r =

0.13, p = 0.000), anchoring (r =
0.093, p = 0.006), imperfection (r =
0.076, p = 0.025),
hard skills (r = 0.11, p = 0.002) and soft skills (r = 0.13, p = 0.000), as shown in Table 2.
We next tested for trustworthiness as a possible mediator between the individual
relationships for each of the five tactics and the employability dependent measure. Per the
statistical procedures described by Rucker and colleagues (Rucker et al., 2011; James and
Brett, 1984), mediation can be assessed if there is a significant relationship between either
the independent variable (i.e. tactics) and the dependent variable (i.e. the ratings of pay) or a
significant relationship between the independent variables and the mediator (i.e.
trustworthiness). We followed Hayes’s (2018) bootstrapping procedure for exploring
mediation by analyzing the effect size and the confidence intervals of the indirect effects.
This allows us to understand whether the mediator improves the model over and above the
effects of the main dependent variable. Per the use of this method, if the confidence interval
of the indirect effect does not cross zero, a statistically significant conclusion of mediation
can be drawn (Shrout and Bolger, 2002).
Using the Hayes PROCESS macro (Model 4), it was found that trustworthiness mediated
the effect of each tactic: BATNA (indirect effect =
5.61, lower level of confidence interval
(LLCI) =
8.5, upper level of confidence interval (ULCI) =
2.2), anchoring (indirect effect =

3.62, LLCI =
6.77, ULCI =
0.51), imperfection (indirect effect =
2.97, LLCI =
5.49,
ULCI =
0.69), hard skills (indirect effect = 4.13, LLCI = 1.59, ULCI = 6.66) and soft skills
(indirect effect = 5.29, LLCI = 3.22, ULCI = 7.39) on the likelihood of being rated well on the
employability dependent variable, thus supporting H6.
Mediation results for the pay dependent variable was similarly run with each of the five
tactics as the independent variable, based on the significant correlations between the tactics
and the potential mediator of trustworthiness. Using the Hayes PROCESS macro (Model 4),
it was found that trustworthiness mediated the effect of each BATNA (indirect effect =

0.43, LLCI =
0.71, ULCI =
0.17), anchoring (indirect effect =
0.30, LLCI =
0.58,
ULCI =
0.05), imperfection (indirect effect =
0.23, LLCI =
0.44, ULCI =
0.05), hard
skills (indirect effect = 0.32, LLCI = 0.12, ULCI = 0.55) and soft skills (indirect effect = 1.42,
LLCI = 0.23, ULCI = 0.65) on the likelihood of being rated highly on the pay dependent
 32,2

274
IJCMA

Table 3.

population
employability and
Study 1 regression

pay for able-bodied

results for tactics on
Model 3 Model 4 Hard Model 5 Soft
Model 1 BATNA B Model 2 Anchoring Imperfection B skills B (SE of skills B (SE of
Statistic DV* (SE of B) Beta B (SE of B) Beta (SE of B) Beta B) Beta B) Beta

Tactic 1
11.21 (2.47)
0.15
13.16 (2.46) –0.18
9.44 (2.45) –0.13 9.25 (2.45) 0.13 7.14 (2.49) 0.097
2 0.37 (0.48) 0.026 0.85 (0.48) 0.061
1.49 (0.47) –0.11 0.81 (0.47) 0.082 (0.48)
0.058 0.006
N 1 858 858 858 858 858
2 858 858 858 858 858
R2 1 0.023 0.032 0.017 0.016 0.010
2 0.001 0.004 0.012 0.003 0.000
F 1 20.57 28.625 14.84 14.23 8.22
2 0.59 3.18 10.04 2.93 0.029
P 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004
2 0.44 (ns) 0.075 (ms) 0.002 0.087 (ms) 0.86 (ns)

Notes: *DV1 = Employability, DV2 = Pay

variable. These results provide further support for H6. See Table 4 for complete mediation Job interviews
analysis reports.

Discussion
Employability. Results show that what gets said in the first few moments of a job interview
does matter. The interview simulations that included discussions of the job candidate’s hard
skills or their soft skills led to higher likelihood of a positive perception of employability, and
thus, helped the job candidates. Conversely, the use of other tactics including mentioning 275
another job offer (BATNA), anchoring with a salary figure or showing an imperfection (by
spilling water and apologizing) in this first-impression moment was seemingly off-putting
and associated with lower ratings on employability by our participants. As previous
research has demonstrated the utility of these types of tactics, it does seem to be the timing
that makes the difference in this case and which may drive this reversal of effect.
Pay. In terms of the pay that participants felt was fair for each job candidate, it seems
that showing an imperfection also decreased the salary figure suggested by our participants,
though it may have helped increase perceptions of fair pay when the hard skills and
anchoring tactics were used, respectively. While it makes sense that describing specific hard
skills should increase perceptions of appropriate salary, this finding in the case of anchoring
is curious. In that case, the tactic seemed to inspire participants to rate the candidate as less
likely to deserve the job at all, but as more deserving of higher pay if the candidate were to
actually get the job. So, while people were, perhaps, negatively disposed to the candidate as
a person, the anchor still seemed to have some effect on the numbers that were present in
their minds. This may be explained in part by the fact that trustworthiness ratings were
lower when candidates used the anchoring tactic. Although people may have appreciated
that the candidate may reasonably command a higher salary, they seemingly did not feel
that they were trustworthy enough to want to hire them at all.
Trustworthiness. Participants were indeed willing to attach different value judgments to
the trustworthiness of the candidates based only on the 30 s of material that was observed.
Trustworthiness, in general, seemed to play a key role in how these tactics changed
perceptions of the job candidate. In each case, the use of a tactic seemed to inspire a response
on how trustworthy they appeared (i.e. more trustworthy in the case of describing hard and
soft skills and less trustworthy in the case of using the BATNA, anchoring and imperfection
tactics), and these judgments of trustworthiness had a corresponding impact on the
participants’ sense of how much this person was the right fit for getting the job, as well as
how much they should earn in most cases. Clearly, signals that influence these initial
judgments of trustworthiness are critical and relate to judgments about a job candidate’s
employability and the rate of pay that they deserve.

Study 2: disabled population

The results of Study 1 add to our body of knowledge about influence tactics in this type of
negotiation, but they do not address the question of possible differences in how these tactics
might function depending on who is using them. That is to say, the same tactic might not
work identically for everyone. For example, research on communications has demonstrated
that the same statements offered by men and women can be perceived very differently
(Fairhurst, 1986). Similarly, a wealth of research has identified that people living with
disabilities are perceived differently from the non-disabled, even in the same situations. It is
this population that we next aim to explore to better understand whether tactics that work
for the non-disabled will have the same effects when used by a highly stigmatized
population, people with disabilities.
IJCMA
Tactic DV* Model 1: Total Model 2: Direct Model 3: Indirect Conclusion
32,2
BATNA
Effect 1
11.21
6.05
5.16 Partial mediation
2 0.37 0.79
0.43 (employability
se 1 2.47 2.11 1.61 and pay)
2 0.48 0.47 0.14
276 t 1
4.54
2.87 –
2 0.77 1.69 –
p 1 0.000 0.004 –
2 0.44 0.09 –
LLCI 1
16.06
10.19
8.47
2
0.57
0.13
0.71
ULCI 1
6.36
1.91
2.23
2 1.31 1.72
0.17
Anchoring
Effect 1
13.16
9.54
3.62 Partial mediation
2 0.58 1.15
0.30 (employability
se 1 2.46 2.08 1.58 and pay)
2 0.48 0.47 0.14
t 1
5.35
4.58 –
2 1.78 2.47 –
p 1 0.000 0.000 –
2 0.07 0.014 –
LLCI 1
17.99
13.63
6.77
2
0.086 0.24
0.58
ULCI 1
8.33
5.45
0.51
2 1.79 2.07
0.05
Imperfection
Effect 1
9.44
6.47
2.97 Partial mediation
2
1.49
1.26
0.23 (employability
se 1 2.45 2.07 1.22 and pay)
2 0.47 0.46 0.10
t 1
3.85
3.13 –
2
3.17
2.74 –
p 1 0.0001 0.0018 –
2 0.0016 0.0063 –
LLCI 1
14.25
10.54
5.49
2
2.41
2.17
0.44
ULCI 1
4.63
2.41
0.69
2
0.57
0.36
0.05
Hard skills
Table 4. Effect 1 9.25 5.12 4.13 Partial mediation
Study 1 mediation 2 0.81 0.49 0.32 (employability
effects of se 1 2.45 2.08 1.28 and pay)
trustworthiness on 2 0.47 0.46 0.11
the relationships t 1 3.77 2.46 –
between tactics and 2 1.71 1.05 –
employability and p 1 0.0002 0.014 –
2 0.09 0.29 –
pay for able-bodied
population (continued)
 Job interviews
Tactic DV* Model 1: Total Model 2: Direct Model 3: Indirect Conclusion

LLCI 1 4.44 1.04 1.59

2
0.12
0.42 0.12
ULCI 1 14.06 9.20 6.66
2 1.74 1.40 0.55
Soft skills 277
Effect 1 7.14 1.85 5.29 Full mediation
2 0.08
0.34 0.42 (employability)
se 1 2.49 2.12 1.07
2 0.48 0.47 0.11
t 1 2.87 0.87 – Partial mediation
2 0.17
0.72 – (pay)
p 1 0.0042 0.38 –
2 0.86 0.47 –
LLCI 1 2.25
2.31 3.22
2
0.86
1.27 0.23
ULCI 1 12.02 6.00 7.39
2 1.02 0.58 0.65

Notes: *DV1 = Employability, DV2 = Pay Table 4.

Methodology
Participants and Design. Participants were 853 individuals recruited from MTurk who were
paid for their contribution. Again, all participants were over 18 years of age and the vast
majority were at least college-educated and were employed at the time of the study. The
design was again a randomized experiment in which participants viewed a job candidate
engaging in the beginning of a job interview using one of several different tactics.
Procedure. The procedure used in Study 2 was identical to that of Study 1, with the
exception of the job candidate using a wheelchair. The wheelchair was clearly visible in the
videos provided to participants. The same actor was used in these videos as in Study 1, and
the same exact scripts were used. Just as in Study 1, participants saw a video demonstrating
one of the tactics of interest, including presentation of BATNA by revealing another
potential offer, anchoring with a salary number, demonstrating an imperfection by spilling
water and apologizing, describing relevant hard skills and describing relevant soft skills.
Again, a follow-up survey measured participants’ impressions of the job candidate’s
employability for this job and ratings of trustworthiness on the same five-item scale (a =
0.844).

Results
Please see Tables 5 and 6 for descriptive statistics and correlations for Study 2.
As in Study 1, linear regressions were used to explore the effects of each tactic in
question on the dependent variable, which is first the rating of the participants’ judgment of
the job candidate’s employability on the 100-point scale. Supporting H1, those participants
who saw the candidate mention having another job offer (statement of BATNA) were rated
as significantly lower on the employability scale (B =
7.72, p = 0.001). In support of H2,
those participants who saw the candidate mention a salary number that they thought they
should reasonably get (using an anchor) were also rated as significantly lower on the
employability scale (B =
8.06, p = 0.000). H3 was supported here as well, demonstrating
IJCMA 95% confidence 95% confidence
32,2 Mean (0–100 scale) (in interval – lower interval –
Tactic DV* thousands of dollars) SD bound upper bound

BATNA 1 64.03 21.31 59.19 68.86

2 57.73 3.79 56.87 58.59
Anchoring 1 63.73 23.43 58.45 69.01
278 2 60.03 3.65 59.20 60.85
Imperfection 1 62.63 22.63 58.45 66.82
Table 5. 2 57.30 4.21 56.52 58.07
Study 2 descriptive Hard skills 1 76.00 16.29 72.33 79.67
2 58.78 3.71 57.95 59.62
statistics for Soft skills 1 73.83 18.23 69.69 77.97
employability and 2 57.71 3.96 56.81 58.61
pay by tactic for
disabled population Notes: *DV1 = Employability, DV2 = Pay

Variable Employability Pay Trustworthiness

Employability –
Pay 0.35** –
Trustworthiness 0.53** 0.21** –
Table 6. BATNA
0.12**
0.028
0.035
Study 2 correlations Anchor
0.12** 0.16**
0.10**
Imperfection
0.19**
0.11**
0.14**
with tactics, mediator Hard skill 0.081* 0.058 0.044
and dependent Soft skill 0.045
0.029 0.018
variables for disabled
population Notes: N = 854; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

that showing an imperfection in these early moments of a job negotiation (by spilling some
water and then apologizing) was associated with significantly lower ratings on
employability (B =
13.17, p = 0.000). Like Study 1 and supporting H4b, participants
reacted to the job candidate with the disability positively when viewing expressions of hard
skills (B = 5.45, p = 0.017), but there was no predictive relationship of significance when the
candidate discussed soft skills (B = 3.06, p = 0.185, ns), failing to support H5b.
With respect to the ratings of potential pay, the only relationships to emerge were a
negative effect of mentioning an anchor (B = 2.15, p = 0.000) and displaying an imperfection
(B =
1.45, p = 0.002). These provide some additional support for H2 and H3. See Table 7
for full regression reports.
As in Study 1, we next explored the trustworthiness measure as a possible mediator. We
again first determined the correlations between the tactics and the trustworthiness scale.
Trustworthiness was significantly related only to anchoring and imperfection, as follows:
BATNA (r =
0.035, p = 0.31, ns), anchoring (r =
0.10, p = 0.004), imperfection (r =
0.14,
p = 0.000), hard skills (r = 0.044, p = 0.202, ns) and soft skills (r = 0.018, p = 0.607, ns), as
shown in Table 6.
Trustworthiness was explored as a potential mediator between only four of the tactics
and employability because soft skills did not display a significant relationship with either
 Model 1 BATNA B Model 2 Anchoring Model 3 Imperfection Model 4 Hard skills Model 5 Soft skills
Statistic DV* (SE of B) Beta B (SE of B) Beta B (SE of B) Beta B (SE of B) Beta B (SE of B) Beta

Tactic 1
7.72 (2.29)
0.115
8.06 (2.28) –0.12
13.17 (2.28) –0.194 5.45 (2.29) 0.081 3.06 (2.31) 0.045
2
0.38 (0.46) –0.028 2.15 (0.46) 0.16
1.45 (0.47) –0.11 0.78 (0.46) 0.058
0.39 (0.46) –0.029
N 1 853 853 853 853 853
2 853 853 853 853 853
R2 1 0.013 0.014 0.038 0.007 0.002
2 0.001 0.025 0.011 0.003 0.001
F 1 11.34 12.51 33.45 5.67 1.76
2 0.66 22.28 9.73 2.89 0.71
P 1 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.185 (ns)
2 0.42 (ns) 0.000 0.002 0.09 (ns) 0.40 (ns)

Notes: *DV1 = Employability, DV2 = Pay

Study 2 regression

population
Job interviews

results for tactics on

Table 7.

pay for disabled

employability and
279
IJCMA the dependent measure of employability or with the proposed mediator, trustworthiness. We
32,2 again followed Hayes’s (2018) bootstrapping procedure for exploring mediation by
analyzing the effect size and the confidence intervals of the indirect effects, which allowed us
to understand whether the mediator improves the model over and above the effects of the
main dependent variable. Using the Hayes PROCESS macro (Model 4), it was found that
trustworthiness mediated the effect of only anchoring (indirect effect =
3.50, LLCI =
280
6.13, ULCI =
1.58) and imperfection (indirect effect =
4.71, LLCI =
7.92, ULCI =

1.75). For the remaining tactics, judgments of trustworthiness did not mediate the
relationship between each tactic and perceptions of employability.
When exploring the potential mediation of trustworthiness between the tactics and the
ratings of pay, we again explored only those variables that had either a relationship between
the tactic and the dependent variable (rating of pay) or a relationship between the tactic and
the trustworthiness scale (Rucker et al., 2011; James and Brett, 1984). In this case, this
included only two tactics, anchoring and imperfection. Using the Hayes PROCESS macro
(Model 4), it was found that trustworthiness mediated each the effect of anchoring (indirect
effect =
0.31, LLCI =
0.58, ULCI =
0.094) and imperfection (indirect effect =
0.37,
LLCI =
0.17, ULCI =
0.032). See Table 8 for complete mediation analysis reports. These
results provide only moderate support for H6.

Discussion
Employability. The results from this study show that when viewing a job candidate with a
visible disability (i.e. one seated in a wheelchair in this case), evaluators formed many of the
same conclusions about the tactics used as did those observing a non-disabled job
candidate. That is, referring to a BATNA, setting a salary anchor and displaying an
imperfection were all seen as damaging and resulted in lower ratings of employability. Also
in parallel with the non-disabled, expressions of hard skills helped the disabled job
candidate to be rated more favorably in terms of employability. However, unlike the non-
disabled, the presentation of soft skills was not associated with higher ratings of
employability. They were not negatively related, but neither did they help. In the context of
the known bias that people have toward those living with disabilities by perceiving them as
more warm and less competent, this is noteworthy. It seems more valuable for those living
with disabilities to emphasize their hard skills, rather than to emphasize any ability to
interact well with, relate well to or even manage people effectively. Perhaps, this stems from
the stereotype that employers have about people with disabilities, where they are already
perceived as warm, and thus, may also possess soft skills. Mentioning these may not have as
much added value as emphasizing hard skills, which would be a more frame-breaking
contribution for this population. Given the very small window available to make a first
impression, this finding has direct implications for the real world.
Pay. In this case, displaying an imperfection or presenting a numeric anchor both served
to hurt impressions of the job candidate’s appropriate pay outcomes. While the results of the
imperfection tactic here are the same as those seen in the non-disabled population, the
anchoring effect is reversed. Specifically, it seems that people held it against the job
candidate using the wheelchair when they announced a salary figure preemptively, whereas
they had rated the non-disabled job candidate as worthy of higher pay after anchoring
instead. The same courtesy that was extended to the non-disabled does not seem to be in
effect here, in terms of respecting the market value that was presented. Instead, the job
candidates with disabilities seem to have been penalized for raising this issue, which might
indicate disability-based discrimination.
Tactic DV* Model 1: Total Model 2: Direct Model 3: Indirect Conclusion
Job interviews
BATNA
Effect 1
7.72
6.48
1.24 No mediation
se 1 2.29 1.94 1.28 (employability)
t 1
3.37
3.33 –
p 1 0.0008 0.0009 –
LLCI 1
12.22
10.30
3.86 281
ULCI 1
3.22
2.67 1.22
Anchoring
Effect 1
8.06
4.55
3.50 Partial
2 2.15 2.46
0.31 mediation
se 1 2.28 1.95 1.30 (employability
2 0.46 0.45 0.13 and pay)
t 1
3.54
2.34 –
2 4.72 5.52 –
p 1 0.0004 0.020 –
2 0.000 0.000 –
LLCI 1
12.53
8.38
6.13
2 1.26 1.59
0.58
ULCI 1
3.58
0.73
1.08
2 3.05 3.34
0.094
Imperfection
Effect 1
13.17
8.46
4.71 Partial
2
1.45
1.08
0.37 mediation
se 1 2.28 1.96 1.55 (employability
2 0.46 0.46 0.04 and pay)
t 1
5.78
4.31 –
2
3.12
2.35 –
p 1 0.000 0.000 –
2 0.0019 0.019 –
LLCI 1
17.64
12.32
7.92
2
2.36
1.98
0.17
ULCI 1
8.70
4.61
1.75
2
0.54
0.18
0.032
Table 8.
Hard skills Study 2 mediation
Effect 1 5.45 3.90 1.55 No mediation effects of
se 1 2.29 1.94 1.04 (employability) trustworthiness on
t 1 2.38 2.01 – the relationships
p 1 0.0017 0.045 –
LLCI 1 0.96 0.087
0.44
between tactics and
ULCI 1 9.94 7.71 3.64 employability/pay
for disabled
Notes: *DV1 = Employability, DV2 = Pay population

Trustworthiness. Trustworthiness mediated the effects of only anchoring or displaying an

imperfection on both ratings of employability and on levels of pay for this population.
Negative ratings of trustworthiness seemed to play a role in these relationships. It is worthy
of note that, regardless of tactic used, positive trustworthiness ratings were never achieved
within this population. This is consistent with bias shown in previous work whereby
trustworthiness seems harder to earn for those with disabilities, particularly in the realm of
being perceived as more trustworthy and employable (Strindlund et al., 2019).
IJCMA Previous research has shown that impressions of distrust seem to stem from concerns over
32,2 ability, accommodation costs, productivity constraints (e.g. the need to take additional time
off) and a general out-group bias (Houtenville et al., 2016; Domzal et al., 2008). The poor
impressions of trustworthiness shown toward the disabled job candidate in this simulated
interview is particularly concerning, as trustworthiness relates so strongly to impressions of
potential contributions in the job, especially for this population (Strindlund et al., 2019).
282
Study 3: tactic versus control
While the results of Studies 1 and 2 give us some confidence in the effectiveness of various
tactics on the outcomes of perceptions of employability and pay, it does not inform how
these tactics work relative to a control of not presenting a tactic at all. To mitigate this
concern, Study 3 looks to explore this question in particular for the hard and soft skill
tactics, as those contained the differences of interest to the two populations studied (able-
bodied and disabled). In addition, we bolstered the language used in each tactic to ensure
that the hard and soft skills discussed were effective representations of the competence and
warmth dimensions as established by theory (Fiske et al., 2002); Appendix 3 for the full
script used. This change in language is aimed at providing additional support for the overall
conclusions. The results are divided into Studies 3a and 3 b accordingly, to observe the
effects within each population. Thus, this study will provide yet further tests of H4a, H4b,
H5a and H5b, as stated above, by exploring whether these tactics are significantly different
from not using a tactic at all.

Methodology
Participants and Design. Participants were 467 individuals recruited from MTurk who were
paid for their contribution (235 for Study 3a and 232 for Study 3b). All participants were
over 18 years of age and the vast majority were at least college-educated and were employed
at the time of the study. The design was again a randomized experiment in which
participants viewed a job candidate at the beginning of a job interview.
Procedure. The procedure used in Study 3 was identical to that of Studies 1 and 2, using
the same actors. The three conditions were a control condition in which the candidate merely
expressed interest in the job without using a specific tactic, an expanded hard skills
statement to express competence through job skills and expressions of confidence (Price and
Stone, 2004; Anderson et al., 2012) and an expanded soft skills statement to express both a
more personable background, as well as skills at working well with others [4]. Again, a
follow-up survey measured participants’ impressions of the job candidate’s employability
for this job, as before [5]. Note that the inclusion of a control condition using both the male
and female actors can allow us to also compare across these two to ensure that participants
did not react systematically differently to them, independent of tactic or disability status.
Please see Table 9 for descriptive statistics for both Studies 3a and 3b.

Study 3a results: no disability

As predicted and consistent with the findings in Study 1, the presentation of language
reinforcing the candidate’s hard skills (M = 74.6, sd = 17.7) improved participants’
judgments of the candidate’s employability over and above the control condition for the non-
disabled candidate (M = 67.3, sd = 19.7, t =
2.41, p = 0.017), providing additional support
for H4a. Similarly, the presentation of language reinforcing the candidate’s soft skills (M =
75.5, sd = 18.1) improved participants’ judgments of the candidate’s employability over and
above the control condition (M = 67.3, sd = 19.7, t =
2.7, p = 0.008), providing additional
support for H5a. With respect to our two actors, there was not a significant difference in the
ratings of employability between the male (M = 67.25, sd = 18.31) and female (M = 67.44, Job interviews
sd = 21.24, t =
0.042, p = 0.97) in the control condition, giving us more confidence in the
decision to collapse across this dimension throughout.

Study 3b results: people with disabilities

As predicted and consistent with the findings in Study 2, the presentation of language
reinforcing the candidate’s hard skills (M = 78.3, sd = 16.8) improved participants’ 283
judgments of the candidate’s employability over and above the control condition for the
disabled candidate (M = 71.3, sd = 18.5, t =
2.45, p = 0.016), providing additional support
for H4b. Similar to Study 2, the presentation of language reinforcing the candidate’s soft
skills (M = 75.9, sd = 15.6) did not improve participants’ judgments of the candidate’s
employability over and above the control condition (M = 71.3, sd = 18.5, t =
1.68, p =
0.095), again demonstrating that soft skills do not help this population. This does not
support H5b precisely (because it does not indicate a negative relationship), but it does
indicate that offering these types of comments is no better than presenting the generic
statements in the control condition, which is consistent with the findings in Study 2.

Discussion
Consistent with the results of Studies 1 and 2, these studies demonstrate that there is a
benefit to establishing one’s hard skills as competent to do a job during the early phase of a
job interview, over and above a control condition. This seems to be equally true for both
the able-bodied and disabled candidates. However, reinforcing the findings of Study 2, for
the disabled population, the use of soft skills as an introduction to the self does not
provide the same advantage.

Overall discussion
Implications
Across three studies, results suggest that some influence tactics, when used at the very
outset of a job interview process, can harm instead of help job candidates. In a job interview,
while there may be a time and a place to discuss a BATNA, set an anchor for a salary figure
or try to humanize oneself by showing an imperfection, these results demonstrate that they
may not be useful as part of a first impression (although there was some evidence that
anchoring with a salary figure was effective for non-disabled job candidates in terms of
raising the rate of pay that seemed appropriate for them). Instead, that first moment seems
best used by a demonstration of the skills that will help to do the job effectively.

95% confidence 95% confidence

Tactic Study* Mean SD interval – lower bound interval – upper bound

Control 3a 67.34 19.68 62.93 71.75 Table 9.

3b 71.29 18.52 67.06 75.52 Study 3 descriptive
Hard skills 3a 74.56 17.75 70.56 78.57 statistics for
3b 78.26 16.78 74.47 82.04
Soft skills 3a 75.49 18.11 71.40 79.57
employability by
3b 75.92 15.60 72.41 79.44 tactic for able-bodied
and disabled
Notes: *Study3a = Able-bodied, Study3b = Disabled. N (3a) = 235; N (3b) = 232 populations
IJCMA For the non-disabled, discussion of both hard skills (specific competencies) and soft skills
32,2 (working effectively with people) is valuable, but for those job candidates in a wheelchair,
the benefit was only obtained through the discussion of hard skills and not soft skills. These
results suggest that especially for the disabled population, the focus on job skills, which is a
competence-based approach, is more beneficial for impressions of employability than
attempting to inspire feelings of warmth. Note that although we did not directly compare the
284 effects of the tactics between the non-disabled and disabled job candidates, this is consistent
with prior research (Louvet et al., 2009). Indeed, the question of importance for research is
not necessarily “what would work better or less well for you as compared to someone else,”
but is instead, “given that you are in the situation that you are in, what works best for you?”
In this case, the answer seems to point to an exclusive focus on specific job skills for those
with disabilities.
From a broader theoretical perspective, these findings also open a black box of the
application of influence tactics in negotiations more generally to stigmatized populations.
The intention of Study 2 was to extend the literature on disability beyond existing evidence
that has simply suggested that employer discrimination exists. Research on disability has
commonly been outcome-oriented, not process-oriented. In fact, studies that address hiring
behavior have generally predicted discriminatory outcomes based on disability status alone
(Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008; Baldwin and Johnson, 2006; Ravaud et al., 1992; Baert, 2014;
Bertrand and Duflo, 2016). None have fully explained the intervening process that shaped
the behavior itself, nor explored how it might change. Similarly, previous research has
operated under the assumption that influence tactics are also a fixed tool that will be equally
effective regardless of speaker or context, and these results suggest that reality is more
complex. The results of this study have suggested one area of potential benefit over others
for a stigmatized population in a job interview context, while also providing reassurance
that many approaches do not play out differently for this population. Future studies can aim
to investigate this area more fully by looking more exhaustively at both other tactics and
other moments of time within the interview and negotiation processes.
Trustworthiness also seems to play a role in the way we draw these conclusions. While
for the non-disabled, higher ratings of trustworthiness mediated the relationship between
statements of hard skills and soft skills, there was no such positive relationship between
these statements and the subsequent ratings of trustworthiness for those with the disability.
Trustworthiness is clearly harder to earn from the vantage point of the person in the
wheelchair. Future research can aim to explore what, if anything, those living with
disabilities could do or say to move the needle in a positive direction with regard to
appearing as trustworthy, just as previous research has demonstrated the positive effects of
conscious discussion of the leadership potential of those with disabilities (Lyons et al., 2018).

Limitations
Our study design has some limitations, which should be noted. First, any situation recreated
in a lab setting may not reflect how these actions and reactions might unfold in a real-world
situation. It is possible that when reviewing a video with no real consequences, impressions
of hiring decisions might be made in ways inconsistent with reality (Ameri et al., 2018). For
example, a real employer might react with more fear toward the idea of hiring someone with
a disability, as the unknown elements of having that person in the workplace would be more
salient. In a hypothetical situation, this might not weigh as heavily. In addition, it is not
possible to confirm with correlation-based analysis whether true causation is the case.
Trustworthiness may co-occur with judgments of employability, for example, and not
necessarily be a causal force. Indeed, the relatively strong correlation that we observed
between trustworthiness and judgments of both employability and trust in our Studies 1 Job interviews
and 2 suggest that this may be a driver in and of itself (and thus, may also limit the strength
of our conclusions on the mediation paths presented here). Future work can aim to bring
these questions into the field to explore their effects there.
In addition, our study explored only one type of broad, unspecified occupation (“project
manager”), which may have had an impact on how the job candidates were perceived. Though
this job was chosen specifically as one in which both hard skills and soft skills were important,
it may be the case that the impressions that people hold about what this job is and how it is best 285
done may have skewed our results. Future research can potentially reinforce these findings and
improve our sense of generalizability by broadening these elements, as well as looking
specifically at the impressions of those in the position of employer.
Finally, although we find that certain tactics did not benefit job candidates when used at
the very beginning of an interaction, they may have had different effects if used later.
Indeed, these tactics may be relatively unlikely to appear this strongly so early in the
process, when candidates are more focused on generating good will and potentially less
focused on persuading the employer of their worth. Although we understand from previous
research that these tactics can benefit job candidates, and it stands to reason that tactics
such as these might be better suited to a later moment once a positive impression has been
formed and a good relationship launched, we cannot conclude for sure that the timing effects
are important without a direct comparison. Similarly, future research could explore
combinations of tactics used together, and assess the most effective patterns for success.

Conclusion
While economic well-being remains an elusive goal for many people with disabilities (World
Health Organization/World Bank, 2011), the results from this work suggest that influence
tactics may play a positive role in job opportunities. Overall, these studies provide a good
first step toward the exploration of influence tactics in the realm of job negotiations, for both
people with and without disabilities.

Notes
1. Data were collected using both a male and a female job candidate, but, as no differences emerged
on any study variables, the gender of the candidate was collapsed for the rest of the analysis.
Both actors were approximately 30 years old, Caucasian, and had conventional appearances.
2. Consistent with previous work on “thin slices,” which shows that it takes shockingly little time to
get an impression of others (as little as 30 s – see Ambady and Rosenthal, 1992), we used this
amount of time in our videos.
3. Although the employability and pay items were significantly correlated (r = 0.428, p < 0.001),
they did not combine into a single scale with a sufficient Cronbach’s alpha (a = 0.273), and so we
proceeded to analyze them as separate dependent variables.
4. Given the expanded nature of these scripts, a separate set of people read one of the scripts and
then rated the job candidate on eight different adjectives (four of which were synonyms of
warmth and four of competence). T-tests confirmed that those who read the soft skills script
rated the candidate higher on the warmth scale (1.75, with 1 = “strongly agree”) than on the
competence scale (3.30, t =
5.33, p = 0.000). Similarly, those who saw the hard skills script rated
the candidate higher on the competence scale (2.34, with 1 = “strongly agree”) than on the
warmth scale (3.50, t = 3.42, p = 0.002).
5. We elected not to include the pay dependent variable, as it was not as meaningful in the previous
studies, nor the trustworthiness measure, as it was not focal to this study’s purpose.
IJCMA References
32,2 Ambady, N. and Rosenthal, R. (1992), “Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal
consequences: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 256-274, doi: 10.1037/
0033-2909.111.2.256.
Ameri, M., Schur, L., Adya, M., Bentley, F.S., McKay, P. and Kruse, D. (2018), “The disability
employment puzzle: a field experiment on employer hiring behavior”, ILR Review, Vol. 71 No. 2,
286 pp. 329-364, doi: 10.1177/0019793917717474.
Anderson, C., Brion, S., Moore, D.A. and Kennedy, J.A. (2012), “A status-enhancement account of
overconfidence”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 4, pp. 718-735, doi:
10.1037/a0029395.
Aronson, E., Willerman, B. and Floyd, J. (1966), “The effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal
attractiveness”, Psychonomic Science, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 227-228, doi: 10.3758/BF03342263.
Auerbach, D. (2018), “How to answer ‘what is your weakness?’ in a job interview”, available at: www.
careerbuilder.com/advice/how-are-you-supposed-to-answer-what-are-your-weaknesses (accessed
2 June 2020).
Ayres, I. and Siegelman, P. (1995), “Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car”, The
American Economic Review, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 304-321, available at: www.jstor.org/stable/2118176
Ayres, I., Banaji, M. and Jolls, C. (2015), “Race effects on eBay”, The RAND Journal of Economics,
Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 891-917, available at: www.jstor.org/stable/43895621.
Baert, S. (2014), “Wage subsidies and hiring chances for the disabled: some causal evidence”, working
paper [8318], IZA Institute for Labor Economics, 12 Dec, available at: www.iza.org/publications/
dp/8318/wage-subsidies-and-hiring-chances-for-the-disabled-some-causal-evidence
Baldwin, M.L. and Johnson, W.G. (2006), “A critical review of studies of discrimination against workers
with disabilities”, in Rodgers, W.M. (Ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Discrimination,
Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA, pp. 119-160.
Bayle, N. (2002), “Determinants of the employers’ behavior toward disabled workers”, Les Cahiers
Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, Vol. 54, pp. 84-101.
Bazerman, M.H. and Neale, M.A. (1992), Negotiating Rationally, Free Press, New York, NY.
Becker, G.S. (1957), The Economics of Discrimination, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Bertrand, M. and Duflo, E. (2016), “Field experiments on discrimination”, working paper
[w22014], National Bureau of Economic Research, Feb, available at: www.nber.org/
papers/w22014
Bowles, H.R., Babcock, L. and Lai, L. (2007), “Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity
to initiate negotiations: sometimes it does hurt to ask”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 84-103, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.001.
Cialdini, R.B. (1993), Influence: science and Practice, HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Colquit, J.A., Scott, B.A. and LePine, J.A. (2007), “Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-
analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 909-927, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909.
Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S.T. and Glick, P. (2007), “The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and
stereotypes”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 631-648, doi: 10.1037/
0022-3514.92.4.631.
Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), “The organizational trust inventory (OTI): development and
validation”, Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: frontiers of Theory and
Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 302-330, doi: 10.4135/9781452243610.n15.
Curhan, J.R. and Pentland, A. (2007), “Thin slices of negotiation: predicting outcomes from
conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3,
pp. 802-811, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.802.
Domzal, C. Houtenville, A. and Sharma, R. (2008), “Survey of employer perspectives on the employment Job interviews
of people with disabilities”, CESSI, McLean, VA, available at: www.dol.gov/odep/research/
SurveyEmployerPerspectivesEmploymentPeopleDisabilities.pdf
Fairhurst, G.T. (1986), “Male-female communication on the job: literature review and commentary”,
Annals of the International Communication Association, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 83-116, doi: 10.1080/
23808985.1986.11678604.
Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J.C., Glick, P. and Xu, J. (2002), “A model of (often mixed) stereotype content:
competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived competence and competition”, 287
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 878-902, doi: 10.1037//0022-
3514.82.6.878.
Gerhart, B. and Rynes, S. (1991), “Determinants and consequences of salary negotiations by male and
female MBA graduates”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 256-262, doi: 10.1037/
0021-9010.76.2.256.
Gino, F. and Moore, D. (2008), “Using final deadlines strategically in negotiations”, Negotiation and
Conflict Management Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 371-388, available at: https://static1.
squarespace.com/static/55dcde36e4b0df55a96ab220/t/55e60365e4b0a781ac3ec3cb/1441137509574/
GinoþMooreþNCMRþ2008b.pdf.
Goldfarb, A. (2019), “How to gracefully leverage a job offer”, The New York Times, 26 Nov, B8,
available at: www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/smarter-living/how-to-gracefully-leverage-an-
outside-job-offer.html
Guthrie, C. and Orr, D. (2006), “Anchoring, information, expertise, and negotiation: new insights from
meta-analysis”, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 21, pp. 597-628, available at:
https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/826
Hayes, A.F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford, New York, NY.
Houtenville, A.J. Brucker, D.L. and Lauer, E.A. (2016), “Annual compendium of disability statistics:
2015”, Institute on Disability, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, available at https://
scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=iod_chhs
James, L.R. and Brett, J.M. (1984), “Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 307-321, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.307.
Jost, J.T. and Burgess, D. (2000), “Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system
justification motives in low status groups”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 26
No. 3, pp. 293-305, doi: 10.1177/0146167200265003.
Kaufman, C.Z. (2020), “How to answer the interview question ‘what salary are you seeking?’”, available
at: www.monster.com/career-advice/article/how-to-answer-what-salary-seeking-job-interview
(accessed 2 June 2020).
Kim, P.H. and Fragale, A.R. (2005), “Choosing the path to bargaining power: an empirical comparison of
BATNAs and contributions in negotiation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 2,
pp. 373-381, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.373.
Kim, P.H., Pinkley, R.L. and Fragale, A.R. (2005), “Power dynamics in negotiation”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 799-822, doi: 10.5465/AMR.2005.18378879.
Lax, D.A. and Sebenius, J.K. (1986), The Manager as Negotiator: bargaining for Cooperation and
Competitive Gain, Free Press, New York, NY.
Lengnick-Hall, M.L., Gaunt, P.M. and Kulkarni, M. (2008), “Overlooked and underutilized: people with
disabilities are an untapped human resource”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 47 No. 2,
pp. 255-273, doi: 10.1002/hrm.20211.
Lount, R.B., Jr, Zhong, C.-B., Srivanathan, N. and Murnighan, J.K. (2008), “Getting off on the wrong foot:
the timing of a breach and the restoration of trust”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 1601-1612, doi: 10.1177/0146167208324512.
IJCMA Louvet, E. (2007), “Social judgment toward job applications with disabilities: perception of personal qualities
and competencies”, Rehabilitation Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 297-303, doi: 10.1037/0090-5550.52.3.297.
32,2
Louvet, E., Rohmer, O. and Dubois, N. (2009), “Social judgment of people with a disability in the
workplace: how to make a good impression on employers”, Swiss Journal of Psychology, Vol. 68
No. 3, pp. 153-159, doi: 10.1024/1421-0185.68.3.153.
Lyons, B.J., Martinez, L.R., Ruggs, E.N., Hebl, M.R., Ryan, A.M., O’Brien, K.R. and Roebuck, A. (2018),
“To say or not to say: different strategies of acknowledging a visible disability”, Journal of
288 Management, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 1980-2007, doi: 10.1177/0149206316638160.
Malhotra, D. and Bazerman, M.H. (2008), “Psychological influence in negotiation: an introduction long
overdue”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 509-531, doi: 10.1177/0149206308316060.
Mann, M. (2018), “How to handle an interview when you have multiple job offers”, available at:
www.theladders.com/career-advice/how-to-handle-an-interview-when-you-have-multiple-
job-offers (accessed 2 June 2020).
Mason, M.F., Lee, A.J., Wiley, E.A. and Ames, D.R. (2013), “Precise offers are potent anchors:
conciliatory counteroffers and attributions of knowledge in negotiations”, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 759-763, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.012.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K.E. and Kramer, R.M. (1996), Swift Trust and Temporary Groups, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mørch, S. and Stalder, B. (2003), “Competence and employability”, in López Blasco, A., McNeish, W. and
Walther, A. (Eds), Young People and Contradictions of Inclusion: Towards Integrated Transition
Policies in Europe, The Policy Press, University of Bristol.
Morris, M.W., Larrick, R.P. and Su, S.K. (1999), “Misperceiving negotiation counterparts: when
situationally determined bargaining behaviors are attributed to personality traits”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 52-67, doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.77.1.52.
Phelps, E. (1972), “The statistical theory of racism and sexism”, American Economic Review, Vol. 62
No. 4, pp. 659-661, available at: www.jstor.org/stable/1806107?seq=1
Platow, M.J., Foddy, M., Yamagishi, T., Lim, L. and Chow, A. (2012), “Two experimental tests of trust in
in-group strangers: the moderating role of common knowledge of group membership”, European
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 30-35, doi: 10.1002/ejsp.852.
Price, P.C. and Stone, E.R. (2004), “Intuitive evaluation of likelihood judgment producers: evidence for a
confidence heuristic”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 39-57, doi: 10.1002/
bdm.460.
Ravaud, J.F., Madiot, B. and Ville, I. (1992), “Discrimination towards disabled people seeking employment”,
Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 951-958, doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90234-h.
Ren, L., Paetzold, R. and Colella, A. (2008), “A meta-analysis of experimental studies on the effects of
disability on human resource judgments”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 191-203, doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.001.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all: a cross-
discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404, doi:
10.5465/AMR.1998.926617.
Rucker, D., Preacher, K., Tormala, Z. and Petty, R. (2011), “Mediation analysis in social psychology:
current practices and new recommendations”, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Vol. 5
No. 6, pp. 359 -371, doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x.
Sasidharan, S. (2019), “How recruiters can eliminate hiring bias”, available at https://talscale.com/blog/
how-recruiters-can-eliminate-hiring-bias/ (accessed 2 June 2020).
Shirako, A., Kilduff, G.J. and Kray, L.J. (2015), “Is there a place for sympathy in negotiation? Finding
strength in weakness”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 131,
pp. 95-109, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.09.004.
Shrout, P.E. and Bolger, N. (2002), “Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new Job interviews
procedures and recommendations”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 422-445, doi: 10.1037/
1082-989X.7.4.422.
Stone, D.L. and Colella, A. (1996), “A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in
organizations”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 352-401, doi: 10.2307/
258666.
Strack, F. and Mussweiler, T. (2003), “Heuristic strategies for estimation under uncertainty: the
enigmatic case of anchoring”, in Bodenhausen, G.V. and Lambert, A.J. (Eds), Foundations of 289
Social Cognition: A Festschrift in Honor of Robert S. Wyer, Jr, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 79-80.
Strindlund, L., Abrandt-Dahlgren, M. and Ståhl, C. (2019), “Employers’ views on disability,
employability, and labor market inclusion: a phenomenographic study”, Disability and
Rehabilitation, Vol. 41 No. 24, pp. 2910-2917, doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1481150.
Tinsley, C.H., O’Connor, K.M. and Sullivan, B.A. (2008), “Tough guys finish last: the perils of a
distributive reputation”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 88 No. 2,
pp. 621-642, doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00005-5.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), “Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases”, Science,
Vol. 185 No. 4157, pp. 1124-1131, doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
World Health Organization/World Bank (2011), “World report on disability”, World Health
Organization and World Bank, Switzerland, Geneva, available at: www.who.int/disabilities/
world_report/2011/report.pdf

Appendix 1
Integrated Specialists, Inc. is searching for a full-time Project Manager. The candidate should have
strong interpersonal and job-related skills, including experience implementing project objectives.
This job will require working closely within a team and will also involve interacting with customers
both onsite and offsite. Specific job skills and other requirements include:
 Analytical skills: You will need mathematical reasoning and analytical skills to solve
problems that may come up during a typical workday. You will be analyzing data and
making decisions that affect the project on a regular basis.
 Leadership skills: You will have to keep your employees motivated, resolve conflicts and
make hard decisions for your employees.
 Time management: You will be working with employees, customers and managers, often
spinning multiple plates at once. Depending on your level of prior experience, the job will
pay between $50,000 and $65,000.
Before we proceed to the video of a snippet of the job applicant’s interview, we want to ensure that
you understand what is required for this job. Please list two skills that would be important to perform
well at this job. Feel free to look above to review the job description.
(Note that the Analytical and Leadership skills sections were counterbalanced in terms of which
appeared first.)

Appendix 2. Scripts for Studies 1 and 2

The job candidate was a hired actor that recited assigned scripts, as follows:
 Presentation of BATNA by revealing another potential offer: “I have been working
alongside a more senior project manager for a few years, so I know what this kind of
work requires. While I enjoyed that job, I would like to advance into a full project
manager role. I feel like I should let you know that I have been offered another position
IJCMA already, which seems like a great opportunity, but I am really interested in learning more
32,2 about your position before I decide.”
 Anchoring with a salary number: “I have been working alongside a more senior project
manager for a few years, so I know what this kind of work requires. While I enjoyed that
job, I would like to advance into a full project manager role. I want to give you some
insight about the salary that I think would be appropriate for someone at my level. Given
290 my previous experience, I would like to make at least $63,000.”
 Demonstrating an imperfection: “I have been working alongside a more senior project
manager for a few years, so I know what this kind of work requires. While I enjoyed that
job, I would like to advance into a full project manager role.” The candidate then spilled a
cup of water and apologized: Sorry about that. . .should I get that? and the interviewer
responds with “no, no, carry on.” The candidate continued: I am applying for this job
because it seems like the right time for me to try something new.
 Describing relevant hard skills: “I have been working alongside a more senior project
manager for a few years, so I know what this kind of work requires. While I enjoyed that
job, I would like to advance into a full project manager role. My real strength is in my
solid math and analytical skills. I am proficient with all of the current software and data
management tools. I am also highly organized and very detail-oriented.”
 Describing relevant soft skills: “I have been working alongside a more senior project
manager for a few years, so I know what this kind of work requires. While I enjoyed
that job, I would like to advance into a full project manager role. My real strength is in
my solid interpersonal skills. I am a good communicator and I have had success helping
people resolve conflicts at work. Overall, I relate really well to people and enjoy
motivating them.”

Appendix 3. Scripts for Study 3

The job candidate was a hired actor that recited assigned scripts, as follows:
 Control: “I have been working alongside a more senior project manager for a few years,
so I know what this kind of work requires. While I enjoyed that job, I would like to
advance into a full project manager role. I am applying for this job because it seems like
the right time for me to try something new. I am looking for a company that offers
growth opportunities.”
 Hard Skills/Competence: “I have been working alongside a more senior project manager
for a few years, so I know what this kind of work requires. While I enjoyed that job, I
would like to advance into a full project manager role. I am very confident that I can do
this job. I am the type of person who is open to challenges at work, and I am sure that I
am capable of handling this. My real strength is in my solid math and analytic skills. I
am proficient with all of the current software and data management tools. I am also
highly organized and very detail-oriented.”
 Soft Skills/Warmth: “I have been working alongside a more senior project manager for a
few years, so I know what this kind of work requires. While I enjoyed that job, I would
like to advance into a full project manager role. Ever since high school, I have been
interested in project management. I realized from watching a teammate who took over
organizing us and really connected with everyone that these skills were truly important
to our success, and my real strength is in my solid interpersonal skills. I am a good
communicator and I have had success helping people resolve conflicts at work. Overall, I
relate really well to people and enjoy motivating them.”
About the authors Job interviews
Mason Ameri, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Professional Practice at Rutgers Business School,
Newark and New Brunswick. He specializes in the opportunities of the gig economy, and in
managing diversity through equal access for people with disabilities. He has presented his work at
The World Bank, through a TED event, in journals such as Academy of Management Discoveries and
in over 100 media outlets including The New York Times. He has notably advised the House of
Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Reform on matters of equal access. He has earned
numerous awards in each research, teaching and service. 291
Terri Kurtzberg, PhD is a Professor of Management at Rutgers Business School, Newark and New
Brunswick. She is the author of four books, on the topics of job negotiations, negotiating at home,
virtual teams and distraction. Other published work appears in journals such as Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Applied Psychology, Group Dynamics and Social
Justice Research. Her research has been quoted in numerous media outlets such as The New York
Times, Fortune Magazine, CNN.com and on the BBC World Service and CBS Radio. She is the
recipient of multiple teaching and research awards. Terri Kurtzberg is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: tk@business.rutgers.edu
Lisa Schur is a Professor in the Department of Labor Studies and Employment Relations at
Rutgers University, where she teaches employment law and labor studies. She received a PhD in
Political Science from the University of California-Berkeley and a J.D. from Northeastern University.
Her research focuses on the economic, political and social inclusion of people with disabilities,
particularly their political participation and employment experiences and outcomes. In addition to
her journal publications, she co-authored the book People with Disabilities: Sidelined or
Mainstreamed? published by Cambridge University Press.
Douglas Kruse is a Distinguished Professor in the School of Management and Labor Relations at
Rutgers University, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a
Research Fellow at the IZA Institute for the Study of Labor. He served as Senior Economist at the
White House Council of Economic Advisers in 2013-2014. He received an M.A. in Economics from the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a PhD in Economics from Harvard University. His research
focuses on the employment and earnings effects of disability, and the causes, consequences, and
implications of employee ownership and profit sharing.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com