Abstract
The analysis of hiring penalties due to spelling errors has been restricted to white-collar occupations and error-laden resumes. Moreover, the mechanisms underlying these penalties remained unclear. To fill these gaps, we conducted a scenario experiment with 445 recruiters. Compared to error-free resumes, hiring penalties are inflicted for error-laden resumes (18.5 percent points lower interview probability) and resumes with fewer errors (7.3 percent points lower interview probability). Furthermore, we find heterogeneity in penalties inflicted. Half of the penalty can be explained by the perceptions that applicants making spelling errors have lower interpersonal skills (9.0%), conscientiousness (12.1%) and mental abilities (32.2%).