Williams, K. B., Radefeld, P. S., Binning, J. F., & Sudak, J. R. (1993). When job candidates are “hard-” versus “easy-to-get”: Effects of candidate availability on employment decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 169-198.

Being hard-to-get but still available makes a person more attractive as a dating partner. This study tested whether being hard-to-get is also an advantage in the job market. Following social comparison theory, the authors expected that employers would find candidates more attractive when they were hard-to-get because of job offers from other companies. Being hard-to-get because of situational reasons (e.g., ability to relocate) was not expected to lead to more positive impressions. The authors also hypothesized that candidates who were easy-to-get because of situational reasons would be evaluated more positively than those who were easy-to-get because of dispositional reasons (e.g., failure to get previous jobs).

In the first study, 80 undergraduate college students evaluated one of four potential employees’ cover letter, resume, and other materials. The applicant was either hard-to-get (considering two other job offers) or easy-to-get (would definitely take this job) for either situational (success/failure at other interviews) or dispositional (ability/inability to relocate) reasons, as indicated in the cover letter. All other materials for the candidates were identical. After reviewing the information, the participants rated the applicant on several single-item scales. Students rated the applicant who was hard to get for dispositional reasons and the applicant who was easy-to-get for situational reasons as more desirable and qualified and more likely to be hired by them than the other two candidates. There were no differences in their ratings of the likelihood of an interviewer hiring each of the candidates.

In Study 2, 184 professional recruiters evaluated cover letters and resumes of a job applicant which were manipulated to represent an easy-to-get or hard-to-get applicant with either high or low ability (operationally defined as a high or low GPA). The gender of the applicant was also varied. Recruiters rated the hard-to-get candidates and the candidates with higher GPAs more positively than the easy-to-get candidates and those with lower GPAs. Participants rated the candidate who was both hard-to-get and had a high GPA as more likely to be hired than the other three candidates, although the hard-to-get/high GPA candidate was not seen as more likely to be interviewed, more desirable, or more qualified than the other candidates. The gender of the applicant did not affect ratings, but male recruiters rated applicants more positively than did female recruiters.

Being hard-to-get may provide an applicant an advantage in the pre-interview stage of the employment process, but only if the reason for being hard-to-get is high qualifications. Employers may use the information that other companies want to hire the applicant as an indication of the quality of the applicant.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611-621.

Some of the problems that low accepted children face may be lessened by supportive one-on-one friendships. To better understand children’s friendships and friendship quality, this study investigated the relationships between peer acceptance, friendship quality, and loneliness. Specifically, the authors examined the prevalence and quality of mutual friendships among children of different acceptance levels. They also tested a new friendship quality instrument with six subscales measuring companionship, disclosure, helping, conflict level, conflict resolution, and validation. Finally, the authors examined how acceptance, the presence of a best friend, and friendship quality related to loneliness.

Eight hundred and eighty-one third through fifth grade children from five Midwestern elementary schools completed several questionnaires in three administrations spaced across two months. Children rated how much they liked to play with each of the children in their class and named their three best friends and their “very best friend” from the same list. They also completed the Friendship Quality Questionnaire with respect to the person they nominated as their very best friend and indicated their satisfaction with this friendship. They completed a 16-item scale assessing loneliness and dissatisfaction with their peer relationships as well. The average rating children received from their classmates on the “play” measure was used to calculate their level of acceptance (high, average, or low). If a child listed a person as one of his/her best friends and that child also nominated him/her, they were considered best friends. If a child’s named very best friend also nominated him/her as one of his/her three best friends, they were considered very best friends.

High accepted children were more likely to have very best friends and best friends than average accepted children, who were in turn more likely to have very best and best friends than low accepted children. High accepted children also had more reciprocal best friends than average accepted children, who had more than low accepted children. Girls had more best friends than boys. Girls also rated their best friendships as higher in disclosure, validation, and helping than boys did. Low accepted children’s ratings of their friendships were not different from those of other children in companionship or satisfaction, but they were lower in friendship quality in all other regards. Children who were higher in peer acceptance, who had a best friend, and who reported greater friendship quality were less lonely.

Peer acceptance and friendship quality are distinct constructs that independently contribute to children’s loneliness. Although high accepted children were more likely to have best friendships, all of them did not have reciprocal friends, and many low accepted children did have best friends. Peer acceptance and best friendships may affect children in different ways, with peer acceptance possibly affecting leadership skills and the best friendship meeting intimacy and social support needs.