What the study actually tested
Researchers created one-page and two-page versions of resumes for four fictitious, highly qualified graduating accounting students. They mailed mixed sets to 570 personnel recruiters at major accounting firms and asked respondents to rank the candidates as if they were hiring for entry-level roles.1
The two-page versions ranked more favorably. That is useful because it contradicts the claim that a second page is automatically harmful. It does not establish that two pages are better in every market.1
What it does not settle
- •The study covered entry-level accounting candidates, not every role or career stage.
- •Recruiters ranked supplied resumes. The study did not measure real callbacks, interviews, or hires.
- •The study was published in 2001, before today's digital application workflow.
A better editing rule
RIYP interpretation: use the shortest version that preserves the evidence a reviewer needs. Put the experience and results most relevant to the role on page one. Use page two for additional work only when it adds useful scope, depth, or context.
Every line should pass a simpler test: "Does this help a reviewer understand my fit for this role?"
Make the important details easy to find
If page two repeats earlier points, combine them. If an older role does not help explain your qualifications for this job, shorten it. Check that your recent responsibilities and strongest results remain easy to find.
Limitations
- •This is a peer-reviewed study, but its setting is narrow and dated.
- •The abstract reports that packets went to 570 recruiters; it does not make 570 the completed-response count.
- •Use the finding to reject a rigid one-page rule, not to replace it with a rigid two-page rule.