European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Attractive rivals may undermine the expectation

of career advancement and enhance jealousy. An
experimental study

Abraham P. Buunk, Rosario Zurriaga, Pilar González-Navarro & Lucas

Monzani

To cite this article: Abraham P. Buunk, Rosario Zurriaga, Pilar González-Navarro & Lucas
Monzani (2016) Attractive rivals may undermine the expectation of career advancement and
enhance jealousy. An experimental study, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 25:6, 790-803, DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1156085

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1156085

Published online: 09 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 650

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2016
Vol. 25, No. 6, 790–803, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1156085

Attractive rivals may undermine the expectation of career advancement and enhance jealousy.
An experimental study
a,b c c d
Abraham P. Buunk , Rosario Zurriaga *, Pilar González-Navarro and Lucas Monzani
a
Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1. 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands; bFaculty of Social and
Behavioral Sciences, University of Curaçao Jan Noorduynweg 111, Willemstad, Curaçao; cIDOCAL. Facultad de Psicología, University of
Valencia, Avd. Blasco Ibañez, 21. 46010, Valencia, Spain; dIan O. Ihantowycz Institute for Leadership, Ivey Business School at Western
University, 1255 Western Road, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1
(Received 9 March 2015; accepted 14 February 2016)

This experiment with 119 adult females examined the effect of a rival’s attractiveness on jealousy and career advancement
expectations in a simulated work setting where individuals had to compete for a job promotion. We hypothesized that an
attractive rival would evoke relatively more jealousy and lower career advancement expectations, especially in individuals
high in Intrasexual Competitiveness (ISC). In addition, we examined the moderating effects of characteristics attributed to
the rival in terms of popularity, professionalism, and unfriendliness. The results showed that, overall, an attractive rival
induced more jealousy and lower career advancement expectations than an unattractive rival. Especially among women who
attributed unfriendliness to their rival, the attractiveness of the rival induced higher levels of jealousy and lower career
advancement expectations. Among women high in ISC, the rival’s attractiveness induced lower career advancement
expectations. It is recommended that managers and human resource officials pay particular attention to how physical
attractiveness may interfere with female employees’ professional development, and to the important role of emotions in the
workplace.
Keywords: jealousy; physical attractiveness; experiment; job promotion; career advancement

experience more occupational success, are more popular,

“Personal beauty is a much better recommendation than
any letter of presentation” (Aristoteles, Diogenes
Laertius).
Although there are cultural differences in the features
that are considered attractive, physical attractiveness is
valued in all cultures, and there is considerable agreement
across cultures about who is attractive and who is not
(e.g., Bell & McLaughlin, 2006; Langlois et al., 2000).
Six-month-old infants can already discriminate between
attractive and unattractive faces (Ramsey, Langlois,
Hoss, Rubenstein, & Griffin, 2004). Within social psy-
chology, research on physical attractiveness began with
the pioneering paper by Dion, Berscheid, and Walster
(1972), focusing on the “beautiful-is-good” stereotype,
according to which attractive people have more positive
traits and characteristics than unattractive people.
Numerous studies have provided evidence for the exis-
tence of this stereotype (see Bell & McLaughlin, 2006;
Eagly, Richard, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991). A meta-ana-
lysis by Langlois et al. (2000) demonstrated the far-reach-
ing consequences that physical attractiveness can have.
Compared to unattractive adults, attractive adults
have more dating and sexual experience, and enjoy better
physical health. In addition, attractive adults tend to have
higher self-confidence and self-esteem, more favourable
self-perceptions, better social skills, and better mental
health, as well as being more competent. The main expla-
nation for these findings is that attractive people are trea-
ted more positively by others, creating a sort of self-
fulfilling prophecy (e.g., Jussim, 1986). In the present
research, we examined how the attractiveness of a rival
in the workplace may affect jealousy and career advance-
ment expectations among women, and to what extent this
may depend on individual differences in intrasexual com-
petitiveness (ISC) and the characteristics attributed to the
rival.
Although physical attractiveness is generally a very
important attribute of the ideal partner for both men and
women (Eastwick, Luchies, Finkel, & Hunt, 2014),
numerous studies in dozens of countries have shown that
men tend to select their partners more on the basis of
physical attractiveness than women do, probably because
it functions as a sign of youth and fertility (Buunk,
Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002; Shackelford,

*Corresponding author. Email: Rosario.Zurriaga@uv.es

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

 European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
Schmitt, & Buss, 2005). In addition, there is evidence that
one’s partner’s attractiveness predicts marital satisfaction
in the first four years of marriage much better in men than
in women (Meltzer, McNulty, Jackson, & Karney, 2014).
It has been assumed that, in the course of human evolu-
tion, males’ preferences became a weapon in the competi-
tion between females. Indeed, women tend to compete
with each other in the domain of physical attractiveness
much more than men do (Campbell, 2002; Cashdan, 1998;
Merten, 1997). For example, Hill and Buss (2006) found
that women, but not men, preferred to be less attractive in
an absolute sense, but more attractive than their rivals
(e.g., scoring a 5 when rivals score a 3), rather than
being more attractive in an absolute sense, but less attrac-
tive than their rivals (e.g., scoring a 7 when rivals score a
9). In addition, when confronted with highly attractive
rivals, women tend to “dislike” such a rival, particularly
when she makes intrasexual competition salient, as when
conversing with a male (Baenninger, Baenninger, &
Houle, 1993). Women tend to rate the tactic of attracting
attention to their appearance as being the most effective in
competing with others, regardless of what the competition
is about (Cashdan, 1998; Walters & Crawford, 1994). In a
series of studies, Dijkstra and Buunk (1998) showed that
romantic jealousy among females is evoked by the physi-
cal attractiveness of the rival more than it is among males.
In the present research, we assumed that competition
among women in the realm of physical attractiveness
tends to extend itself to the work place. Although there
is evidence that attractive women have a greater advantage
in lower-level jobs and in jobs held predominantly by
women, but not at higher levels or in professional jobs
(Bell & McLaughlin, 2006), a study by Luxen and Van de
Vijver (2006) suggests that women tend to reject attractive
candidates of their own gender for a position in their
department more than men do. Buunk, aan’t Goor, and
Castro-Solano (2010) presented participants with a sce-
nario where one’s satisfying and close relationship with
one’s supervisor was threatened because a new employee
seemed to develop a close relationship with the same
supervisor. Women reported more jealousy in response to
a physically attractive rival than men did. The present
research follows up on this latter study and on similar
research that has examined the effect of the attractiveness
of rivals on women in organizations (e.g., Buunk,
Zurriaga, González, & Castro-Solano, 2012). However,
the present research extends the study by Buunk et al.
(2010) in a number of important ways. First, as in virtually
all experimental research on the effects of physical attrac-
tiveness, we used an experimental design with two condi-
tions (attractive rival versus unattractive rival) to examine
the effects of rival attractiveness. Second, we presented
participants with pictures rather than with verbal descrip-
tions of their rivals. Third, we created a realistic situation
of competition for a job promotion rather than a purely
791
imaginary situation. Fourth, participants had to perform a
complicated task that was allegedly used as the basis for
the promotion decision.
Jealousy and career advancement expectations
Competition with an attractive rival, even in work con-
texts, will often involve feelings of jealousy and, conse-
quently, may lead to “disliking” this rival (Buunk et al.,
2010, 2012). In the case of work relationships, we are
referring to the same type of situation as in intimate
relationships, i.e., a rival interferes in a valued relationship
with a co-worker. More specifically, parallel to jealousy in
intimate relationships, jealousy in work relationships
involves three individuals: the focal employee, the rival,
and the valued target person. Jealousy may result from the
loss of self-esteem or the loss of outcomes associated with
a working relationship with the valued target person due to
the rival’s interference (cf. Buunk et al., 2010; Vecchio,
1995, 2000; White & Mullen, 1989). Jealousy may, for
instance, be evoked when a worker perceives that his or
her boss pays a lot of attention to a new colleague at the
expense of time spent with him or her. It seems particu-
larly relevant to study jealousy in the work place because,
as suggested by Affective Events Theory, emotions and
moods may influence job performance and job satisfaction
(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
We assumed that an attractive rival may not only
induce jealousy in women, but that such a rival may also
lower women’s career advancement expectations.
Although there is no direct current evidence for this
idea, it seems plausible that women will be aware that
physically attractive others have more success on the job
market. Given women’s strong tendency to pay attention
to other women’s attractiveness (e.g., Campbell, 2002), it
seems quite likely that they will also do so in work
settings. In addition, they may note that attractive
women have an advantage when it comes to promotions,
if only because males often make the decisions in this
area. Thus, women may correctly assume that physical
attractiveness is related to occupational success, as found
by Langlois et al. (2000), and to the frequency with which
one receives promotions, as shown by Morrow, McElroy,
Stamper, and Wilson (1990). In a recent study, Converse
et al. (2015) found that attractiveness during adolescence
predicted career success. In fact, there seems to be a
“beauty premium” in the labour market (Andreoni &
Petrie, 2008; Hamermesh & Biddle, 1994). In a recent
meta-analysis of the effects of physical attractiveness on
several job-related outcomes, a weighted mean effect size
of .37 was found for 68 studies published between 1975
and 1998 (Hosoda, Stone-Romero, & Coats, 2003). For
example, Frieze, Olson, and Russell (1991) found in a
study among MBA graduates that, over a period of
10 years, the earnings of more attractive women grew
792 A.P. Buunk et al.
faster than the earnings of less attractive women.
Assuming that women will generally be aware of this,
the presence of an attractive rival may negatively affect
women’s expected chances of moving up in the organiza-
tion and, therefore, reduce their career advancement
expectations.
Intrasexual competitiveness
As Buunk et al. (2010) pointed out, jealousy evoked by an
attractive rival reflects a broader phenomenon related to
ISC, i.e., the degree to which one views the confrontation
with same-sex individuals in competitive terms, especially
in the context of contact with the opposite sex. Buunk and
Fischer (2009) developed a scale to assess dispositional
differences in ISC. The scale includes the desire to be
preferred by opposite-sex others more than same-sex
others, the desire to view oneself as better than same-sex
others, envy and frustration when same-sex others are
better off, and negative feelings towards same-sex others.
Scenario studies have shown that in the workplace, parti-
cularly among individuals dispositionally high in ISC,
physical attractiveness is the rival characteristic that pro-
vokes more jealousy in women than in men (Buunk et al.,
2010, 2012). Therefore, we expected that individuals high
in ISC would respond with more jealousy and lower
career advancement expectations to an attractive rival,
compared to an unattractive rival who interferes in their
relationships at work.
To summarize, we hypothesized: (1) that having to
compete with an attractive rival would produce more
jealousy and lower career advancement expectations
than having to compete with an unattractive rival; and
(2) that this would particularly occur among individuals
high in ISC. In addition, for exploratory reasons, we
examined whether the effects of the rival’s attractiveness
depended on the characteristics participants attributed to
their rivals. Some evidence shows that, rather than
attractiveness always inducing a positive stereotype,
unattractiveness may induce a negative stereotype, so
that only quite unattractive women, but not moderately
unattractive women, are evaluated as less altruistic, less
intelligent, less sociable, more arrogant, and more domi-
nant than attractive women (e.g., Griffin & Langlois,
2006; Massar & Buunk, 2010). These attributed charac-
teristics may enhance the effect of physical attractive-
ness on jealousy and the expectations of career
advancement. Therefore, we explored which dimensions
may underlie the characteristics attributed to the rival
using the semantic differential developed by Lopez-
Martinez and Navarro-Lozano (2010), which included
positive and negative personality characteristics often
attributed to attractive versus unattractive people, e.g.,
outgoing, dominant, insensitive, unsociable, and
unfriendly, as well as characteristics relevant to success
in the job market, e.g., hardworking and competent.
Next, we explored how these characteristics might mod-
erate the effects of being exposed to an attractive rival
versus an unattractive rival. Finally, we controlled for a
number of potentially confounding variables, i.e., work
experience, familiarity with the rival, participants’ own
physical attractiveness, and task performance.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 119 female university students
from Spain. The mean age was 23 years (SD = 3.91). At
the time of the experiment, 13% of the participants were
married or in a partner relationship; 10% were employed
full- or part-time, 16% had previous work experience,
67% were full-time students, and 4% did not report their
employment status.
Experimental design
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two
conditions. In the attractive rival condition (n = 59),
participants were presented with a picture of an attrac-
tive young female in their age range. In the unattrac-
tive rival condition (n = 60), participants were
presented with a picture of an unattractive young
female in their age range. The picture of the attractive
woman had been presented to a group of 33 women in
the same age range as the participants in the experi-
ment, and the picture of the unattractive woman had
been presented to a different group of 32 women in the
same age range, who were asked to evaluate the per-
ceived attractiveness of the woman on a scale from 1 to
10. The attractive woman was perceived as quite attrac-
tive (M = 7.7; SD = 1.38), while the unattractive
woman was not perceived as attractive (M = 3.5;
SD = 1.29). The difference between the evaluation of
the two pictures was highly significant, t (63) = 12.63,
p < .001.
Materials
All participants worked individually on a PC in a common
room that accommodated 14 participants in each session
and had a neighbouring Gesell chamber. The software
user-interphase (UI) that the participants used to input
information into our software was especially designed
for this experiment using Microsoft Visual Basic for
Applications © (VBA). Through the UI, all manipulations,
tasks, task feedback, and questionnaires were conducted.
All the collected data were stored in a university cloud
server to which only the main researchers had access.
 European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
Pilot testing
In a pilot test, eight pre-doctoral researchers provided
feedback on their subjective experience in the experiment,
and based on their input, minor corrections were made.
Both the image of the participant and that of the rival were
enlarged to enhance the intended effects.
Procedure
The experiment was conducted in the New Information
Technologies Laboratory at the Psychology Faculty of a
Spanish University. The researchers invited all participants
to take part in an experiment related to testing a
“Software-based Human Resources Selection tool”. This
was a plausible rationale because, as noted by Oostrom,
Born, Serlie, and van der Molen (2010), the use of new
technologies is increasingly recognized as a promising
tool for personnel selection. Written informed consent
for voluntary participation was signed by each participant.
The laboratory consisted of two rooms. In one room,
participants worked under the supervision of two co-
authors who were present during the entire experiment.
In the neighbouring Gesell chamber, a third co-author
observed participants’ reactions. A first screen showed
an electronic form where participants had to enter per-
sonal and work-related information (e.g., employment
status, work experience in years, managerial role if
any, or the type of relationship a participant had with
her boss). The following screen consisted of a series of
panels where participants were asked to provide their
input. In the panel at the upper right part of the screen,
participants were asked to write a short description of
their personality, and immediately after this, they were
asked to take a picture of themselves with a webcam
placed over the PC. It is common for online sites to
require candidates to create a personal profile with a
short self-description and take a profile picture to place
in one’s profile (e.g., Linkedin.com). Furthermore, emu-
lating sites (e.g., infojobs.com; monster.com) that
require candidates to answer some scales when submit-
ting an application for a given position, in the panel at
the lower part of the screen, baseline self-report mea-
sures were displayed. After completing the baseline
measures, participants filled out the scale for
Intrasexual Competition. The participants could only
continue to the next screen after all previous items had
been answered. On the next screen, the background for
the experiment was provided with a scenario set-up
according to Buunk et al. (2010), combining the ele-
ments that define a situation of jealousy. In other words,
the scenario involved three individuals: the focal
employee, the rival, and the valued target person, and
there was a threat due to the presence of the rival
(Vecchio, 1995, 2000). The scenario read as follows:
793
You are participating in a practicum in a company in your
city. Most of the students who have completed the practi-
cum there have obtained a paid job in this company. The
work you do is very interesting, and your relationship with
your colleagues is pretty good. Your direct boss will report
on your work performance. The relationship with your
boss has always been very good, to the extent that you
usually go to lunch together, he asks for your opinion on
various topics, both business and personal, and he even
considers you his confidant. However, some time ago a
new student joined the department and performs the same
tasks as you do. This person is becoming the person of
trust of your boss; moreover, your boss now has lunch
with her and not with you like he did before. At weekly
meetings, he does not ask for your opinion like he used to,
and instead he is quite interested in your colleague’s
opinion. In addition, you have seen them leaving together
after work.
On the following screen, the experimental manipula-
tion took place. This screen was divided into three panels,
from left to right. In the panel on the far left, a short
message from the supervisor stated that he had to make
a decision about which intern would get the full-time
position, and so each participant would have to perform
a series of tasks. Additionally, he affirmed that he would
take into consideration “all aspects of a person” in his final
decision. In the second panel from left to right, the picture
of the rival appeared. In the third panel, the picture of the
participant appeared as well. Thus, participants were
simultaneously watching their own picture and the rival’s
picture during the whole experiment. Therefore, the com-
petitive situation was quite realistic. Indeed, it seemed
relevant to provide participants with a picture of their
rival because it would enhance the real-life nature of the
experimental situation.
The message given to participants was:
The manager of this company has decided to offer an
internship to one of the practicum students. As you
know, after passing the test period, this contract will
become a permanent contract. I have been asked to
decide between the two students who are doing the
practicum. As you know, this decision is not easy for
me because there is always someone who is harmed. As
both of you are good workers, in order to make my
decision, I will consider not only the fulfilment of
tasks, but also other aspects such as initiative, leadership
ability, social skills, etc. Ultimately, I will make my
decision considering all the aspects of the person.
On the following screens, participants were asked to
indicate their first impressions of their rival, the manipula-
tion check, and their familiarity with their rival. This experi-
mental approach allowed us to maintain consistency
between our background story and the scenario provided
because, as the scenario mentioned the appearance of a
potential rival, it seemed logical to provide participants
with a picture of this rival. Furthermore, asking participants
794 A.P. Buunk et al.
about their initial impressions of this rival refers to a process
that may occur naturally, for example, among office collea-
gues on a coffee break when a new employee is hired. In
addition, in order to maintain the consistency of the back-
ground story, some actual competition should occur (i.e., in
most organizations, hiring or promotion decisions are to
some extent based on a candidate’s performance).
Therefore, we had participants perform a series of intellec-
tual tasks from the EFAI, a test for the evaluation of intel-
lectual aptitudes (Santamaría, Arribas, Pereña, & Seisdedos,
2005). An example is: “On a farm, there are 4 trees that each
give 10 pieces of fruits per week. How many pieces of fruit
do all the trees on the property give in two weeks? a) 20
pieces of fruit; b) 40 pieces of fruit; c) 80 pieces of fruit; d)
100 pieces of fruit”. All the trials had a single correct
answer, with a fixed amount of time for each trial. If parti-
cipants did not select the correct answer or they exceeded
the assigned time, the answer was considered incorrect.
After each task, participants received real-time feedback.
The feedback screen consisted of several elements: accumu-
lated results of previous trials in terms of successful perfor-
mance or not, and the time required to complete the current
trial. After all the trials had been completed, real-time feed-
back was given about participants’ success or failure on the
trial’s specific goal to maintain the coherence of the back-
ground story, as it is realistic for interns to expect some form
of performance feedback from their supervisors.
Immediately after that, an electronic questionnaire was
administered to measure the dependent variables. After a
participant finished the experiment, she was thanked for her
participation and dismissed. After all participants had com-
pleted the whole experimental cycle, a general debriefing
was held to explain the general rationale for the experiment.
Dependent variables and manipulation check
Perceived rival’s attractiveness
For the manipulation check, participants were asked how
attractive they perceived their rival to be, using a toggle
bar (0 = “unattractive” to “attractive” = 100).
Jealousy
The measure for jealousy evoked by the rival was: “Please
move the slide bar to indicate how much jealousy you feel
towards your rival”. The response scale for this item was
from 0 = minimum to 100 = maximum. The same measure
has been used in various experimental studies on jealousy
in close relationships (e.g., Massar & Buunk, 2010).
Career advancement
To follow the format of the jealousy measure, the measure
for career advancement expectations was: “Please move
the slide bar to the person you think is most likely to get
the contract”, and the response scale ranged from
1 = “your rival” to 100 = “you”.
Moderators
Intrasexual competitiveness
We used the 12-item Spanish version of the Intrasexual
Competition Scale (Buunk et al., 2010; Buunk & Fischer,
2009). This scale measures the dispositional tendency to
compete with same-sex others, especially in the mating
domain (e.g., “When I go out, I can’t stand it when
women/men pay more attention to my same-sex friend
than to me”). Each item was accompanied by a 7-interval
scale (1 = “not at all applicable” to 7 = “completely
applicable”). Cronbach’s Alpha was .87 in this sample.
Characteristics attributed to the rival
A semantic differential based on Lopez-Martinez and
Navarro-Lozano (2010) was presented with eleven oppos-
ing personality attributes (e.g., “lazy” and “hard working”)
on each side of a “toggle bar”. Participants were asked to
rate how they perceived their rival by moving the “toggle
bar” towards the anchor for the attribute they believed best
described their rival. Although participants did not see the
actual score, in our software, the scale ranged from 0 to
100 (e.g., “lazy” = 0 and “hard-working” = 100). Inverse-
coded items were automatically reversed, so that a more
positive attribute represented a higher value.
Control variables
Work experience
We asked participants to report how many years of experi-
ence they had in their current or previous jobs. We con-
trolled for this because participants with previous work
experience may react differently to the scenario situation,
based on the outcome of past similar situations they may
have faced in their jobs.
Familiarity with the rival
Participants were asked whether they knew the rival, as both
pictures were of other students who had already graduated at
the time of the experiment. A single item using a 7-point
Likert scale (0 = “I have never seen this person before” to 7
“I am very familiar with this person”) was used.
Participants’ physical attractiveness
Three male PhD students who were blind to the project
were asked to rate the pictures participants took of them-
selves during the experiment. They were requested to
 European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 795

assess the physical attractiveness of participants on a 5-
point Likert scale (1 = “Not beautiful at all” to 5
“Extremely beautiful”). We deliberately selected male par-
ticipants to prevent intrasexual competition from biasing
the ratings. The raters’ intra-class correlation coefficient
(James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) was .80, which indicates
a good agreement level and, consequently, allows the
scores of the three participants to be aggregated into a
single measure of physical attractiveness.
familiarity, which was very low (M = 1.47, ± .81). In
fact, 68.9% of our sample (82 participants) did not know
the rival at all, and 18.5% might have seen her but not
interacted with her (22 participants), and only 10.1%
might have seen her once (12 participants). As there was
no difference between the two conditions in familiarity
with the rival, we felt it was not necessary to exclude any
participants based on this criterion. Nevertheless, we con-
trolled for this variable in the main analyses.

Task performance Characteristics attributed to the rival

Controlling for task performance is particularly important
in order to isolate the effects of characteristics attributed to
the rival on participants’ career advancement expectations.
Results
Preliminary analyses
Manipulation and random assignment checks
In order to ensure that the experimental manipulation had
the intended effect, we performed a manipulation check of
the rival’s attractiveness. Participants in the attractive rival
condition (M = 81.12, SD = 2.01) perceived their rival as
significantly more attractive (t (113.20) = 14.64, p < .001)
than those in the unattractive condition (M = 34.80,
SD = 2.44). To examine whether the random assignment
to the conditions had been successful, we examined
whether ISC differed between the two conditions, and it
did not (Table 1). In addition, as Table 1 shows, there were
no differences between the two conditions in work experi-
ence, familiarity with the rival, participants’ own physical
attractiveness, or task performance, thus providing addi-
tional evidence for the successful random assignment.
In order to check whether participants had any pre-
vious familiarity with the rival that might interfere with
our manipulation, we explored the mean score of
We performed a factor analysis of the characteristics
attributed to the rival using Varimax rotation and the
maximum likelihood method. The coefficients of skew-
ness and kurtosis of the items ranged from −1 to 1, and the
items had normal distributions. According to the Kaiser
criterion, the scree test, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO)
measure of sampling adequacy, and Bartlett’s Sphericity
test, three factors emerged. The three-factor structure
explained 68.9% of the variance (as some authors state,
e.g., Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006, for
the social sciences, a minimum of 60% of cumulative
variance is quite commonly accepted). The first factor
contained four attributes, including open, funny, active,
and outgoing (factor loadings ranged between .52 and
.83). This factor was labelled popularity, and a scale
based on this factor had an alpha of .85. The second factor
contained the characteristics dominant, insensitive, unso-
ciable, and unfriendly (factor loadings ranged between .63
and .67). This factor was labelled unfriendliness, and a
scale based on this factor had an alpha of .76. The third
factor contained characteristics such as hardworking,
strong, and competent (factor loadings ranged between
.52 and .85), and it seemed to capture the ability to per-
form in a professional manner. Therefore, this factor was
labelled professionalism, and a scale based on this factor
had an alpha of .62.

Table 1. Means, standard errors, and F-values across experimental conditions.

Non-attractive rival Attractive rival

Experimental condition Mean SE Mean SE F-value

Work experience (in years) .67 .21 .52 .22 F (1,117) = .21, n. s.
Familiarity with the rival 1.53 .11 1.41 .10 F (1,117) = .72, n. s.
Participants’ physical attractiveness 2.41 .08 2.48 .08 F (1,117) = .39, n. s.
Task performance 3.33 .15 3.24 .13 F (1,117) = .23, n. s.
Rival popularity 46.42 2.20 59.35 2.03 F (1,117) = 18.58***
Rival unfriendliness 43.59 2.06 45.94 1.97 F (1,117) = .67, n. s.
Rival professionalism 66.93 1.68 65.38 1.86 F (1,117) = .79, n. s.
Intrasexual competition 2.70 .13 3.04 .12 F (1,117) = 3.58, n. s.
Jealousy 36.62 3.18 47.24 3.43 F (1,117) = 5.15*
Career advancement expectation 36.46 2.89 46.67 3.06 F (1,117) = 5.19*

Note: *p < .05; *** p < .001.

796 A.P. Buunk et al.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Work experience .60 1.65 –

2. Rival familiarity 1.47 .81 .11 –
3. Task performance 3.29 1.09 .03 −.11 –
4. Physical attractiveness 2.44 .61 −.13 −.15 −.14 –
5. ISC 2.87 .99 −.04 .18* −.09 .03 –
6. Jealousy 41.89 25.98 −.09 .09 −.00 .11 .29** –
7. Rival’s popularity 52.83 17.54 .02 .14 .07 .02 .09 .04 –
8. Rival’s unfriendliness 44.76 15.57 −.10 .04 .02 −.12 .21* .29** −.14 –
9. Rival’s professionalism 66.16 13.66 −.09 −.04 .08 .10 −.06 .15 .22* −.20* –
10. Career advancement 58.48 23.40 .00 −.08 −.08 −.10 −.11 −.35** −.37** −.12 −.14 –
* p < .05, ** p < .01; ISC = Intrasexual competition; career advancement = career advancement expectation.

Correlations among the variables
We also assessed the correlations among all the study
variables (Table 2). As Table 2 shows, jealousy was posi-
tively correlated with ISC and unfriendliness attributed to
the rival. Career advancement expectation was negatively
correlated with jealousy and popularity attributed to the
rival.
Main and moderator effects
Main effects
To test Hypothesis 1, specifying the main effects of phy-
sical attractiveness, we conducted two ANOVAs with rival
attractiveness as independent variable and jealousy and
career expectation as dependent variables. There was
clear evidence for Hypothesis 1. As Table 1 reveals,
there were strong main effects of rival attractiveness on
both jealousy and career expectation: attractive rivals
evoked much more jealousy and much lower career expec-
tations than unattractive rivals.
Moderator effects
To test Hypothesis 2, specifying the moderator effect of
ISC, we performed a hierarchical regression analysis,
combining ordinary least squares with a non-parametric
approach. More specifically, we used the bootstrap func-
tion in IBM SPSS Statistics 22 © using 1,000 sub-samples
with reposition and the Bias-Corrected and accelerated
(BCa) option enabled, to estimate SE and 95% CI for all
our regression coefficients. We report bootstrapped CI, as
this technique is a quick way to construct CI empirically
that avoids power problems introduced by asymmetric and
other non-normal sampling distributions (Wood, 2005).
We also examined the potential moderator effects of the
three newly constructed scales that assessed the character-
istics attributed to the rival. Thus, in all, eight regressions
were performed, as there were four moderators and two
dependent variables. In order to clarify the nature of the
interaction effects, we conducted single slope analyses, as
suggested by Aiken and West (1991). Following sugges-
tions made by several authors (Cohen & Cohen, 1983;
Cronbach, 1987; Jaccard, Turrisi, & Wan, 1990), standar-
dized scores of the moderators were used to avoid poten-
tial multicollinearity issues. The unattractive rival was
assigned a score of 0, and the attractive rival a score of
1. The F-test of statistical significance was used to assess
the change in R2 resulting from the addition of the inter-
action terms, and Cohen’s f 2 (1988) statistic was used to
report effect sizes. In all the analyses, we controlled for
work experience, familiarity with the rival, participants’
own physical attractiveness, and task performance. In each
of the analyses of the three characteristics attributed to the
rival, we controlled for the other two characteristics.
Furthermore, following Cohen (1988), we conducted
post hoc power analysis, taking α = .05, which showed
for all our regressions that the achieved power was above
the established 1-β error probability of a .80 threshold for
social sciences to prevent Type I errors. The results are
discussed separately for each dependent variable.
Jealousy
As Table 3 shows, unlike what we predicted in Hypothesis
2, ISC did not moderate the effects of the rival’s attrac-
tiveness on the level of jealousy. However, ISC had a
main effect on jealousy. That is, the rival, regardless of
her attractiveness, evoked more jealousy in women high
in ISC.
As Table 3 shows, the main effect of rival attractive-
ness on jealousy was significantly moderated by the
degree of unfriendliness attributed to the rival, which
also had a significant main effect (see Figure 1).
Similarly, the non-parametric approach shows that a boot-
strapped 95% CI did not include zero, further supporting
this result. A single slope analysis showed that rival
 European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 797

Table 3. Results of hierarchical regression analyses for jealousy.

Jealousy
Ordinary least squares (OLS) Bootstrapped
2
Predictor ΔR B SE β SE 95% CI

Step 1 .03
Work experience −2.26 2.43 −.09 2.92 [−9.42, 1.69]
Familiarity 3.21 2.46 .12 2.25 [−1.09, 7.75]
Physical attractiveness 3.06 2.47 .12 2.74 [−2.89, 8.06]
Task performance .79 2.44 .03 2.09 [−3.13, 4.95]
Step 2 .10**
RA 8.50 4.67 .16† 4.50 [-.13, 17.25]
ISC 6.36 2.38 .24** 2.44 [1.75, 11.05]
Step 3 .00
ISC x RA 2.89 4.95 .08 5.40 [−6.90, 14.23]
R2 = .13 f 2
= .15 Achieved power (1-β) = .86
Step 1 .16*
Work experience −.76 2.31 −.03 2.66 [−7.63, 2.76]
Familiarity 2.92 2.31 .11 1.99 [−1.0, 6.60]
Physical attractiveness 3.71 2.35 .14 2.67 [−1.58, 8.79]
Task performance .20 2.31 .01 2.28 [−4.21, 4.80]
Rival unfriendliness 8.87 2.34 .34** 2.46 [3.93, 13.54]
Rival professionalism 5.26 2.33 .20* 2.39 [.46, 9.57]
Step 2 .04†
RA 11.70 4.94 .23* 4.80 [2.33, 20.46]
Rival popularity −1.98 2.57 −.08 3.41 [−8.61, 4.91]
Step 3 .00
Rival popularity x RA −1.12 4.90 −.03 5.62 [−12.33, 9.54]
R2 = .20 f 2
= .25 Achieved power (1-β) = .82
Step 1 .05
Work experience −1.97 2.43 −.08 2.99 [−10.09, 1.50]
Familiarity 3.28 2.49 .13 2.34 [−1.05, 7.73]
Physical attractiveness 2.73 2.48 .10 2.87 [−3.21, 8.09]
Task performance .49 2.46 .02 2.17 [−3.62, 4.84]
Rival’s popularity −.30 2.49 −.01 2.59 [−5.47, 5.30]
Rival’s professionalism 3.54 2.49 .14 2.69 [−1.95, 8.13]
Step 2 .15**
RA 11.70 4.94 .23* 4.81 [2.37, 21.12]
Rival’s unfriendliness 8.23 2.33 .32** 2.58 [3.64, 13.83]
Step 3 .06**
Rival’s unfriendliness x RA 12.66 4.39 .33** 4.55 [3.38, 21.29]
R2 = .23 f 2
= .30 Achieved power (1-β) = .99

Step 1 .18**
Work experience .06 2.05 .003 2.38 [−5.25, 4.38]
Familiarity −.19 2.09 −.01 2.01 [−3.92, 4.04]
Physical attractiveness 2.03 2.09 .09 2.10 [−2.00, 6.21]
Task performance −.87 2.06 −.04 2.09 [−4.99, 3.25]
Rival’s unfriendliness −3.80 2.06 −.16† 2.38 [−8.95, .81]
Rival’s popularity −9.13 2.06 −.39*** 2.69 [−14.23, −3.78]
Step 2 .02
RA −4.82 4.46 −.10 4.36 [−13.93, 3.34]
Rival’s professionalism −2.79 2.13 −.12 2.74 [−8.29, 2.58]
Step 3 .03†
Rival’s professionalism x RA 7.75 4.04 .24† 4.48 [−2.01, 15.70]
R2 = .22 f 2
= .28 Achieved power (1-β) = .98
Note: β are the standardized regression coefficients. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p< .001. Bootstrapped 95% CI and SE are based on 1,000
bootstrapped sub-samples. RA = Rival attractiveness; ISC = Intrasexual competitiveness.
798 A.P. Buunk et al.
Figure 1. Interaction effects of rival’s unfriendliness and
attractiveness on jealousy.
unfriendliness was associated to higher jealousy in
response to the attractive rival (β = 23.65 t (1,
110) = 3.74, p < .001), but it was not associated with
jealousy in response to the unattractive rival (β = −1.67 t
(1, 110) = –.25, n. s.).
The degree of professionalism attributed to the rival
had marginally significant main and interaction effects,
which we will not discuss further, whereas attributed
popularity did not have any effect on jealousy.
Career advancement expectation
In the analysis of career advancement expectations, we not
only controlled for work experience, familiarity with the
rival, participants’ own physical attractiveness, and task
performance, but also for jealousy. As Table 4 shows,
although ISC did not have a main effect on career
advancement expectations, in line with what we predicted
in Hypothesis 2, ISC did moderate the effect of the rival’s
attractiveness (see Figure 2), explaining a significant addi-
tional 7% of the variance beyond the negative main effect
of jealousy on career advancement expectations (β = –.36 t
(1, 113) = 2.44; p < .001). While the slope gradient of
rival attractiveness was not significant for participants low
in ISC, the slope gradient of attractiveness was statistically
significant for those high in ISC (respectively, β = 5.35 t
(1, 110) = –.94, n. s., and β = –.22.01 t (1, 110) = −3.74,
p < .0001). These findings suggest that only women high
in ISC had lower career expectations in response to the
attractive rival than in response to the unattractive rival.
In addition, as Table 4 shows, the main effect of rival
attractiveness on career expectations was significantly
moderated by the degree of unfriendliness attributed to
the rival (see Figure 3). A bootstrapped 95% CI for the
interaction effect between rival attractiveness and rival
unfriendliness did not include zero, further supporting
our results. Single slope analysis showed that rival
unfriendliness was associated with lower career advance-
ment expectations in response to the attractive rival
(β = −13.82 t (1, 110) = −2.39, p < .05), but it was not
associated with career advancement expectations in
response to the unattractive rival (β = 5.24 t (1,
110) = .86, n. s.).
The degree of popularity attributed to the rival had a
consistent main effect on career advancement expectations
(β = –.32, p < .0001) across our regression models, indi-
cating that the more popular individuals perceived the
rival to be, the lower their career advancement expecta-
tions were, regardless of the rival’s attractiveness.
Discussion
The current study is built on previous correlational studies
by Buunk et al. (2010) and Buunk et al. (2012) on jea-
lousy in work relationships. However, instead of a self-
report method, we used an innovative and unique experi-
mental methodology. The female participants had to com-
pete with either an attractive or unattractive rival for a
tenured contract in a company. In addition to examining
the effect of the rival’s attractiveness on jealousy, we also
examined the effect on career advancement expectations.
Our first hypothesis was that an attractive rival would
evoke more jealousy and lower career advancement
expectations than an unattractive rival. Clear support was
found for both parts of this hypothesis: women reported
more jealousy and a lower expectation of getting selected
for the permanent contract when they had to compete with
an attractive rival than when they had to compete with an
unattractive rival. The finding that an attractive rival will
induce relatively more jealousy is not surprising, given all
the evidence on competition among women in the realm
of physical attractiveness (e.g., Campbell, 2002; Cashdan,
1998; Dijkstra & Buunk, 2002; Hill & Buss, 2006).
However, the effect of an attractive rival on one’s expecta-
tions of career advancement, i.e., obtaining a permanent
contract, has not been established before, and it suggests
that women are aware that there may be a beauty premium
in the labour market (Andreoni & Petrie, 2008;
Hamermesh & Biddle, 1994). Furthermore, women also
seem to be aware that physically attractive rivals have an
advantage in obtaining occupational success (Langlois
et al., 2000) or receiving promotions (Morrow et al.,
1990).
Our second hypothesis was that, in line with Buunk
et al. (2010), attractiveness would especially affect the
jealousy and career expectations of individuals high in
ISC. When not controlling for other variables, we found
no support for this hypothesis. ISC had an overall effect
on jealousy, regardless of the rival’s attractiveness: those
high in ISC reported more jealousy in general, but not
specifically in response to attractive rivals. However, when
 European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 799

Table 4. Results of hierarchical regression analyses for career advancement expectation.

Career advancement expectation

Ordinary least squares (OLS) Bootstrapped
2
Predictor ΔR B SE β SE 95% CI

Step 1 .15**
Work experience −.25 2.07 −.01 3.23 [−8.41, 3.76]
Familiarity −.74 2.10 −.03 2.24 [−5.43, 3.55]
Physical attractiveness 2.97 2.11 .13 2.24 [−1.59, 7.05]
Task performance −1.57 2.07 −07 1.97 [−5.85, 1.96]
Jealousy −8.44 2.06 −.36*** 2.44 [−13.31, −3.82]
Step 2 .03
RA −7.87 4.17 −.17† 4.30 [−16.20, .40]
ISC .26 2.16 .01 2.65 [−5.04, 5.73]
Step 3 .07**
ISC x RA −13.68 4.17 −.40*** 4.41 [−21.52, −4.45]
R2 = .25 f 2
= .33 Achieved power (1-β) = 1.00
Step 1 .06
Work experience −.26 2.20 −.01 3.10 [−7.49, 4.14]
Familiarity −1.69 2.20 −.07 2.32 [−6.28, 2.65]
Physical attractiveness 1.94 2.23 .08 2.32 [−2.76, 6.40]
Task performance −1.39 2.19 −.06 2.19 [−5.63, 3.03]
Rival unfriendliness −3.34 2.22 −.14 2.67 [−9.28, 1.12]
Rival professionalism −4.21 2.21 −.18† 2.30 [−8.06, .95]
Step 2 .13***
RA −4.82 4.46 −.10 4.31 [−13.17, 3.66]
Rival popularity −7.56 2.32 −.32*** 3.26 [−13.97, −1.03]
Step 3 .001
Rival popularity x RA −1.99 4.42 −.05 5.10 [−12.54, 7.58]
R2 = .20 f 2
= .24 Achieved power (1-β) = .97
Step 1 .16**
Work experience .38 2.07 .02 2.69 [−6.41, 5.06]
Familiarity −.49 2.11 −.02 1.92 [−4.14, 3.35]
Physical attractiveness 2.65 2.11 .11 2.06 [−1.68, 6.61]
Task performance −.84 2.09 −.04 2.09 [−4.77, 3.43]
Rival’s popularity −8.20 2.12 −.35*** 2.89 [−13.71, −2.16]
Rival’s professionalism −1.70 2.11 −.07 2.76 [−7.24, 3.71]
Step 2 .04†
RA −4.82 4.46 −.10 4.39 [−13.52, 4.11]
Rival’s unfriendliness −3.94 2.10 −.17† 2.33 [−8.73, .64]
Step 3 .04*
Rival’s unfriendliness x RA −9.53 4.01 −.28* 4.57 [−19.57, −1.33]
R2 = .23 f 2
= .31 Achieved power (1-β) = .99
Step 1 .18**
Work experience .06 2.05 .003 2.38 [−5.25, 4.38]
Familiarity −.19 2.09 −.01 2.01 [−3.92, 4.04]
Physical attractiveness 2.03 2.09 .09 2.10 [−2.00, 6.21]
Task performance −.87 2.06 −.04 2.09 [−4.99, 3.25]
Rival’s popularity −3.80 2.06 −.16† 2.38 [−8.95, .81]
Rival’s unfriendliness −9.13 2.06 −.39*** 2.69 [−14.23, −3.78]
Step 2 .02
RA −4.82 4.46 −.10 4.36 [−13.93, 3.34]
Rival’s professionalism −2.79 2.13 −.12 2.74 [−8.29, 2.58]
Step 3 .03†
Rival professionalism x RA 7.75 4.04 .24† 4.48 [−2.01, 15.70]
R2 = .22 f 2
= .28 Achieved power (1-β) = .99
Note: β are the standardized regression coefficients. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Bootstrapped 95% CI and SE are based on 1,000
bootstrapped sub-samples. RA = Rival attractiveness; ISC = Intrasexual competitiveness.
800 A.P. Buunk et al.
Figure 2. Interaction effects of intrasexual competition and
rival’s attractiveness on career advancement expectations.
Figure 3. Interaction effects of rival’s unfriendliness and attrac-
tiveness on career advancement expectations.
controlling for the negative effect of jealousy on career
advancement expectations, the effect of a rival’s attractive-
ness on career advancement expectation was clearly mod-
erated by ISC. The attractive rival particularly reduced the
career expectations of women high in ISC: as they were
higher in ISC, women perceived lower career expectations
in response to the attractive rival than in response to the
unattractive rival. Therefore, it seems that women high in
ISC have a general tendency to respond with jealousy
towards rivals, but when it comes to the actual threat of
such rivals to their career opportunities, they tend to have
a more instrumental perspective, focusing especially on
the implications of the rival’s attractiveness for their career
and status in work contexts. Women high in ISC seem to
be particularly aware of the important role that physical
attractiveness may have in one’s career opportunities (cf.
Buunk, Pollet, Dijkstra, & Massar, 2011; Langlois et al.,
2000; Morrow et al., 1990). In general, the present find-
ings underline the importance of considering individual
differences in the extent to which people engage in
intrasexual competition. Our findings suggest that some
people more than others seem to have the main goal of
“beating” same-sex others and attaining and maintaining a
high status position in the organization in comparison to
their same-sex peers.
In addition, for exploratory reasons, we examined the
effects of the characteristics attributed to the rival. We
found that these characteristics could be reduced to three
dimensions: popularity, professionalism, and unfriendli-
ness, and that these attributed characteristics were in dis-
tinct ways associated with jealousy and with career
expectations. That is, overall, the more unfriendly the
rival was perceived to be, the more jealousy she evoked,
especially when she was attractive. This finding suggests
that not only a physically attractive rival evokes jealousy,
but especially an attractive rival to whom unfriendly char-
acteristics are attributed, probably because an unfriendly
rival is expected to behave in a relatively competitive and
manipulative way. Something similar occurred in the case
of expectations for career advancement, where the inter-
action between the rival’s physical attractiveness and the
unfriendliness attributed to the rival was also significant.
That is, the more unfriendliness attributed to the rival, the
lower the subject’s own expectations for career advance-
ment were. This result suggests that an attractive rival who
is viewed as unfriendly especially lowers one’s career
advancement perspectives, which seems quite plausible
given that these rivals may be viewed as particularly
reckless and competitive.
While most studies on the effects of attractiveness
have considered attractiveness as a one-dimensional vari-
able, our results suggest that attractiveness can have rather
distinct effects depending on the way the attractive indi-
vidual is perceived. An attractive individual will evoke
jealousy when she is perceived as a rather “nasty” indivi-
dual, and she will seem to be a threat to one’s career when
she is perceived as a quite competent individual.
Practical implications
Our findings may have some implications for practice.
Physical attractiveness is often an issue that is not openly
discussed within organizations. Managers may not be
aware of the negative spill-over effects of ISC in the
realm of physical attractiveness. An inadequate manage-
ment of this issue may result in a more negative affective
work climate, increased intragroup conflict, and reduced
motivation among female employees. Overall, it is impor-
tant for managers to be sensitive to the negative feelings
that competition at work may instil in women due to the
presence of attractive women, and they should be willing
to help employees to manage such negative feelings. In
this regard, human resources management policies must
promote equality, justice, and equity in the distribution of
rewards, assessment of performance, status, power, and
 European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
autonomy of workers. In addition, collaborative work
should be promoted (e.g., by implementing incentive sys-
tems that support cooperation or by encouraging open
communication). These actions may reduce employees’
competitive behaviours and may create a positive work
climate in order to avoid situations that generate jealousy
in their daily interactions. Moreover, as emotions are a
normal aspect of being human, the display of negative
emotions in the workplace should be understandable and
acceptable. Managers might provide employees with the
necessary resources to handle negative emotions, for
example by feelings by creating a safe climate in business
meetings in which such emotions may be voiced, and by
expressing empathy and understanding in one-to-one
meetings towards employees who display negative emo-
tions. In general, the results obtained may contribute to
understanding the psychosocial processes affecting emo-
tions at work, and may thus help managers in achieving
healthier and more productive organizations.
Strengths and limitations
This study has a number of strong points. First, due to the
experimental design, the stimulus was homogeneous and
stable and, therefore, allowed a valid test of the effects of
moderator variables. Second, the experimental situation was
a real-life situation. Students who participated in this
research were in the last years of their studies and had to
do an internship in a company. Normally, there are several
students who perform their practice training in the same
company, and sometimes some of the students are hired to
work in the company. Therefore, our scenario presented
participants with a situation that they may encounter in the
near future. Similarly, the rivals were former students and
may have been viewed as very realistic potential rivals for
an internship position, thus increasing the ecological validity
of our experiment. Furthermore, many organizations in
Spain (the country where the study was conducted) use
these unpaid internships as a way of getting to know their
interns better, so that they can identify and try to retain those
with a high performance potential, as an alternative to
traditional recruiting and selection techniques. Thus, this
experiment was in line with the suggestions made by
Derous and De Witte (2001) regarding the dynamic nature
of personnel selection in order to facilitate acceptable and
effective selection decisions. As these authors suggest,
“Personnel selection is as much about the job (product),
how people are treated (procedure), and how people experi-
ence and react to the selection encounter (process)” (p. 338).
Third, and following Briner (1999), the use of a real context
allowed psychosocial processes to arise naturally. Indeed,
the present paradigm represented a quite specific, but not
uncommon, situation. People do engage in networking and
develop acquaintanceships and friendships at work, and
when it comes to the possibility of a promotion, individuals
801
may pay close attention to their rivals and become jealous
when one of them seems to have a better chance of getting
promoted.
Nevertheless, although this study has important
strengths, it also has some potential limitations. First, we
only used a sample of women; hence, future research should
replicate the results in a sample of men. Second, we created a
situation that was as close as possible to a real-life situation,
and although the responses to such an experimental situation
can be an adequate reflection of how people will react in a
similar real-life situation, they do not necessarily predict how
they will respond in a real organizational context (Collet &
Childs, 2011). Future studies could replicate this experiment
in a larger sample and extend it by varying other factors such
as the gender of the supervisor and the gender of the rival.
Third, the scale for the perceived professionalism of the rival
had a low reliability, which may be the reason that virtually
no effects of this variable were found. Finally, the experi-
mental manipulation may have been quite strong, inducing
jealousy in nearly every individual, so that more subtle
effects could not manifest themselves.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this is one of the few experimental studies
on the impact of attractive versus unattractive rivals in
work contexts. Our research is unique because we used
an experimental paradigm to study the effect of the rival’s
attractiveness on jealousy as well as on career advance-
ment expectations in a simulated work situation where
individuals had to compete with a rival for a job promo-
tion. Though competition is omnipresent in the workplace,
it has been relatively neglected in research, especially how
it may be affected by a seemingly superficial factor like
physical attractiveness. By highlighting the importance of
this phenomenon, the present research may contribute to a
better scientific and practical understanding of the role of
competition in work contexts, particularly among women.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by funding of the Generalitat
Valenciana (Spain) for research groups of excellence
GVPROMETEO2012-048 and by an Academy Professorship
Award granted to Abraham P. Buunk.
ORCID
Abraham P. Buunk http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2176-614X
Rosario Zurriaga http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3096-8122
Pilar González-Navarro http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2750-0166
Lucas Monzani http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3375-068X
802 A.P. Buunk et al.
References
Aiken, L., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Andreoni, J., & Petrie, R. (2008). Beauty, gender and stereo-
types: Evidence from laboratory experiments. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 29, 73–93. doi:10.1016/j.
joep.2007.07.008
Baenninger, M. A., Baenninger, R., & Houle, D. (1993).
Attractiveness, attentiveness, and perceived male shortage:
Their influence on perceptions of other females. Ethology
and Sociobiology, 14, 293–303. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(93)
90001-X
Bell, M. P., & McLaughlin, M. E. (2006). Outcomes of appear-
ance and obesity in organizations. In A. M. Konrad, P.
Prasad, J. K. Pringle, A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K.
Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 455–
474). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Briner, R. B. (1999). The neglect and importance of emotion at
work. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 8, 323–346. doi:10.1080/135943299398212
Buunk, A. P., Aan‘t Goor, J., & Castro-Solano, A. (2010).
Intrasexual competition at work: Sex differences in the jea-
lousy-evoking effect of rival characteristics in work settings.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 671–684.
doi:10.1177/0265407510368964
Buunk, A. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T.
(2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria
for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9,
271–278. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00018
Buunk, A. P., & Fischer, M. (2009). Individual differences in
intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary
Psychology, 7, 37–48. doi:10.1556/JEP.7.2009.1.5
Buunk, A. P., Pollet, T. V., Dijkstra, P., & Massar, K. (2011).
Intrasexual competition within organizations. In G. Saad
(Ed.), Evolutionary psychology in the business sciences
(pp. 41–70). New York, NY: Springer.
Buunk, A. P., Zurriaga, R., González, P., & Castro-Solano, A.
(2012). Competiciónintrasexualen el trabajo:
Diferenciassexualesencelos y envidiaen el trabajo [Intra-sex-
ual competition at work: Sex differences in jealousy and
envy in the workplace]. Revista de Psicología Social, 27,
85–96. doi:10.1174/021347412798844015
Campbell, A. (2002). A mind of her own: The evolutionary
psychology of women. Oxford: University Press.
Cashdan, E. (1998). Are men more competitive than women?
British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 213–229.
doi:10.1111/bjso.1998.37.issue-2
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlba.
Collet, J. L., & Childs, E. (2011). Minding the gap: Meaning,
affect and the potential shortcomings of vignettes. Social
Science Research, 40, 513–522. doi:10.1016/j.
ssresearch.2010.08.008
Converse, P. D., Thackray, M., Piccone, K., Sudduth, M. M.,
Tocci, M. C., & Miloslavic, S. A. (2015). Integrating self‐
control with physical attractiveness and cognitive ability to
examine pathways to career success. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology. doi:10.1111/joop.12107
Cronbach, L. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables:
Flaws in analyses recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin,
102, 414–417. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.414
Derous, E., & De Witte, K. (2001). Looking at selection from a
social process perspective: Towards a social process model
on personnel selection. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 10, 319–342. doi:10.1080/
13594320143000708
Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, A. P. (1998). Jealousy as a function of
rival characteristics: An evolutionary perspective.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1158–
1166. doi:10.1177/01461672982411003
Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B. P. (2002). Sex differences in the jea-
lousy-evoking effect of rival characteristics. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 32, 829–852. doi:10.1002/ejsp.125
Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is
beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 24, 285–290. doi:10.1037/h0033731
Eagly, A. H., Richard, D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C.
(1991). What is beautiful is good, but. . .: A meta-analytic
review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype.
Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109–128. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.110.1.109
Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L.
(2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences:
A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140,
623–665. doi:10.1037/a0032432
Frieze, I. H., Olson, J. E., & Russell, J. (1991). Attractiveness
and income for men and women in management. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1039–1057. doi:10.1111/
j.1559-1816.1991.tb00458.x
Griffin, A. M., & Langlois, J. H. (2006). Stereotype direction-
ality and attractiveness stereotyping: Is beauty good or is
ugly bad? Social Cognition, 24, 187–206. doi:10.1521/
soco.2006.24.2.187
Hair, Jr. J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., &
Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.).
New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hamermesh, D. S., & Biddle, J. E. (1994). Beauty and the labor
market. The American Economic Review, 84, 1174–1194.
Hill, S. E., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Envy and positional bias in the
evolutionary psychology of management. Managerial and
Decision Economics, 27, 131–143. doi:10.1002/mde.1288
Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E., & Coats, G. (2003). The effects
of physical attractiveness on job related outcomes: A meta-
analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56,
431–462. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00157.x
Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in
multiple regression. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating
within-group interrater reliability with and without response
bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
Jussim, L. (1986). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and
integrative review. Psychological Review, 93, 429–445.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.4.429
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A.,
Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty?
A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin,
126, 390–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390
Lopez-Martinez, O., & Navarro-Lozano, J. (2010). Rasgos de
personalidad y desarrollo de la creatividad. Anales de
Psicología, 26, 151–158.
Luxen, M. F., & Van De Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Facial attrac-
tiveness, sexual selection, and personnel selection: When
evolved preferences matter. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27, 241–255. doi:10.1002/job.357
 European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
Massar, K., & Buunk, A. P. (2010). Judging a book by its cover:
Jealousy after subliminal priming with attractive and unat-
tractive faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 49,
634–638. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.037
Meltzer, A. L., McNulty, J. K., Jackson, G. L., & Karney, B. R.
(2014). Sex differences in the implications of partner physi-
cal attractiveness for the trajectory of marital satisfaction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 418–
428. doi:10.1037/a0034424
Merten, D. E. (1997). The meaning of meanness: Popularity,
competition, and conflict among junior high school girls.
Sociology of Education, 70, 175–191. doi:10.2307/2673207
Morrow, P. C., McElroy, J. C., Stamper, B. G., & Wilson, M. A.
(1990). The effects of physical attractiveness and other
demographic characteristics on promotion decisions.
Journal of Management, 16, 723–736. doi:10.1177/
014920639001600405
Oostrom, J. K., Born, M. Ph., Serlie, A. W., & van der Molen, H. T.
(2010). Effects of individual differences on the perceived job
relatedness of a cognitive ability test and a multimedia situa-
tional judgment test. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 18, 394–406. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2389.2010.00521.x
Ramsey, J. L., Langlois, J. H., Hoss, R. A., Rubenstein, A. J., &
Griffin, A. M. (2004). Origins of a stereotype: Categorization of
facial attractiveness by 6-month-old infants. Developmental
Science, 7, 201–211. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00339.x
Santamaría, P., Arribas, D., Pereña, J., & Seisdedos, N. (2005).
EFAI, Evaluación Factorial de las Aptitudes Intelectuales.
Madrid: Departamento I+D TEA Ediciones.
803
Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005).
Universal dimensions of human mate preferences.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.023
Vecchio, R. P. (1995). It`s not easy being green: Jealousy and
envy in the workplace. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in
personal and human resources management (Vol. 13, pp.
201–244). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vecchio, R. P. (2000). Negative emotion in the workplace:
Employee jealousy and envy. International Journal of
Stress Management, 7, 161–179. doi:10.1023/A:100959
2430712
Walters, S., & Crawford, C. B. (1994). The importance of mate
attraction for intrasexual competition in men and women.
Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 5–30. doi:10.1016/0162-
3095(94)90025-6
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events
theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes
and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B.
M. Staw& & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in orga-
nizational behavior: An annual series of analytical
essays and critical reviews (pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory,
research and clinical strategies. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Wood, M. (2005). Bootstrapped confidence intervals as an
approach to statistical inference. Organizational
Research Methods, 8, 454–470. doi:10.1177/10944281052
80059