{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01308698999230177, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003079291762894534, 'mean_word_length': 5.161137440758294, '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}}
You Did What in 1983?

One of the most common dilemmas for candidates preparing résumés is to decide how to present periods in their work history when they were not actively engaged in the workforce. Content analysis of seven of the most popular résumé guides available in Australia indicates that opinion differs regarding how to deal with gaps in work history. Results from a field study involving professional recruiters indicate that reasons for absence from work are subject to gender stereotypes. Results from a second field study indicate that ratings of candidate suitability were not influenced by when the break in career history occurred, nor did explaining those gaps have any influence on this measure. However, explaining gaps in career history did result in improved ratings of honesty. When gaps were left unexplained, and the recruiters noticed the gaps, rejected candidates were rated significantly less honest than their shortlisted counterparts. When recruiters did not notice the gaps, there was no difference in the ratings of rejected and shortlisted candidates, indicating that gaps do influence recruiters' perceptions of candidates but only when noticed. It is argued that gaps in career history should generally be explained. Exceptions to this general rule are discussed.