{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01728110599078341, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.84251968503937, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Method of Resumé Reproduction and Evaluations of Employment Suitability

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