INVESTIGATION OF BIAS IN JOB EVALUATION RATINGS OF COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY PARTICIPANTS

An experimental study was conducted to investigate the effects of knowledge of current pay levels and perceived job gender on subsequent job evaluations. The sample consisted of 53 job evaluators in professional and scientific positions at the University of Iowa who had previously received 20 hours of training in job evaluation and participated in over 100 hours of job evaluations during the implementation of a comparable worth pay system. The hypothesis that jobs with high (manipulated) pay levels would receive higher evaluations than jobs with low (manipulated) pay levels was confirmed, although the effects were smaller than those reported in other studies. In addition, evidence of a pro-female bias was found ( p < .08) in the job evaluation ratings. Implications of these findings for job evaluation research and practice are discussed.     

Constructed criteria: redefining merit to justify discrimination

This article presents an account of job discrimination according to which people redefine merit in a manner congenial to the idiosyncratic credentials of individual applicants from desired groups. In three studies, participants assigned male and female applicants to gender-stereotypical jobs. However, they did not view male and female applicants as having different strengths and weaknesses. Instead, they redefined the criteria for success at the job as requiring the specific credentials that a candidate of the desired gender happened to have. Commitment to hiring criteria prior to disclosure of the applicant's gender eliminated discrimination, suggesting that bias in the construction of hiring criteria plays a causal role in discrimination.     

The Impact of Job Applicants' Facial Maturity, Gender, and Academic Achievement on Hiring Recommendations

Two studies investigated the impact of job applicants' facial maturity, gender, and achievement level on hiring recommendations. The results revealed that discrimination based on gender and facial appearance varies with the type of job for which an applicant is being considered. Applicants who were babyfaced or female were favored for jobs requiring qualities of warmth and submission, whereas those who were maturefaced or male were favored for jobs requiring qualities of shrewdness and leadership. These hiring preferences were most pronounced for high achieving applicants. They were also paralleled by stereotypical perceptions of the job- relevant attributes possessed by the applicants, which suggests that the effects of applicants' gender and facial maturity are mediated by the perceived fit between their assumed attributes and the job requirements. Finally, the jobs for which male and maturefaced applicants were favored were those for which high-achieving applicants were also favored, which suggests that female and babyfaced applicants are most apt to be discriminated against when applying for higher status jobs.     

Investigating differential prediction by gender in employment-oriented personality measures

Gender-based differential prediction of job performance in employment-oriented personality measures has been left virtually unexamined. The use of 3 personality composites from the U.S. Army's instrument to predict 5 dimensions of job performance across 9 military jobs was investigated. Differential prediction, occurring in one third of the cases, was predominantly in the form of overprediction of female performances (i.e., higher male intercepts); slope differences were not found at above-chance levels. Female performance on the Effort and Leadership dimension was overpredicted in 90% of all predictor-criterion-job combinations, suggesting the measurement of this performance dimension as the source of the differential prediction rather than bias in the personality measures. Findings of overprediction of female performance parallel those of research investigating differential prediction by race in the ability domain.     

The Practical Effects of Bias on Compensable Factor Weights in Job Evaluation: A Policy-Capturing Experiment

Subjects (n=64) were shown videotapes of actors portraying incumbents of three jobs, then they completed job evaluation forms for two of them and indicated what they felt these jobs should be paid relative to the third. Job evaluations using the compensable factor weights determined in policy-capturing analyses were then conducted. Results of the job evaluations depended on whether effects of job type and gender bias on compensable factor weights were controlled. Failure to control for these biases produced a pronounced effect on job classification decisions. The estimate of this effect was three to four pay grades. Implications for the determination of weights in job evaluation plans are provided.     

Job satisfaction and women's spheres of work

Job satisfaction for women workers is traditionally researched from the job-gender model in which sex roles generate the research framework. Women employed in the labor market are viewed as responding primarily to the confines of sex roles, as opposed to the structural rewards and constraints of the labor market itself. We reexamined earlier studies that found no effect of the labor market on job satisfaction for women. Reanalysis of the 1972–1973 Quality of Employment national survey revealed significantly different levels of job satisfaction, which are in part structured by the characteristics of the labor market sectors in which women and men work. Women working in labor market sectors that are predominantly male or have a balanced proportion of male and female workers jobs have high job satisfaction. This job satisfaction is predicted almost exclusively by their perceptions of fewer income problems, flexibility of hours, and use of job skills. Factors related to maternity benefits and leaves are related only marginally to job satisfaction for women workers in either labor market sector. Women in predominantly female sectors of the labor market have similarly high job satisfaction scores, but these are related to a wider cluster of factors, including fewer perceived income problems, skills, and challenge factors, as well as the socioemotional rewards of their work. This pattern is most similar to males who work in predominantly male sectors. In contrast, males who work in predominantly female or gender-proportionate jobs have significantly lower job satisfaction scores, even after controling for income issues and other benefits. Labor market sectors and the rewards available within them are important structural dimensions of job satisfaction for women and men employees.     

Occupational suitability bias for full-time and part-time employment in sex-typed jobs

The present study examines the effects of employment status (full time, part time), job sex type, and job applicant sex upon judgments of occupational suitability. Sixty-three male and 176 female undergraduate students (ranging in age between 17 and 32 years) read a brief vignette describing either a man or a woman. Subjects then rated the occupational suitability of the person for three male sex-typed jobs (plumber, bus driver, cabinetmaker) and three female sex-typed jobs (secretary, telephone operator, hairdresser). In one condition subjects were explicitly told that these jobs were full time. In a second condition subjects were explicitly told that these jobs were part time. Results indicated a sex-congruency bias for both full time and part time employment. However, there was evidence that sex congruency bias is reduced for part-time employment.The author is grateful to Dr. Julian Barling, Dr. Rudolf Kalin, and Kevin Kelloway for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. The comments provided by the anonymous reviews were also appreciated.     

The influence of Ratee Gender on Ratings of Organizational Citizenship Behavior1

Two studies were conducted to examine discrepancies in the evaluation of men and women regarding the performance of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). In Study 1, base‐rate differences in the perceived frequency and value of citizenship behaviors performed by males and females were investigated. A gender by job type interaction was found indicating that women were perceived to engage in OCB more frequently than were men in gender‐neutral and male‐typed jobs. No gender differences were found regarding the value associated with citizenship behaviors. In Study 2, undergraduates rated videotaped male and female instructors who exhibited different levels of OCB. Results revealed a gender by OCB interaction such that more accurate behavioral observations were made when observing males exhibiting OCB and females exhibiting no OCB than when observing males who did not exhibit OCB and females who did exhibit OCB. No gender by OCB interactions were found with regard to ratings of overall performance evaluation or reward recommendations.     

Evaluating Gender Biases on Actual Job Performance of Real People: A Meta‐Analysis1

This study examined gender bias on job performance in work settings where confounding variables (e. g., organizational level, experience, education) were cautiously taken into consideration to ensure fair comparisons. Although previous meta‐analyses examined gender biases on evaluations, findings in tightly controlled laboratory environments may differ from those in highly complicated field studies. We found little evidence of overall gender bias in performance appraisals in nonconfounded field studies. However, there were significant pro‐male biases when only men served as raters. Measure‐specific gender stereotypicality, instead of genera! stereotypicality about the job, produced gender bias in performance appraisal. Masculine measures produced pro‐male bias, and feminine measures produced pro‐female bias.     

The vagaries of sex bias: Conditions regulating the undervaluation,equivaluation, and overvaluation of female job applicants

The present study sought to identify the conditions under which women are undervalued, equally valued, and overvalued relative to men when seeking nontraditional jobs. An experiment was conducted in which 241 college students reviewed the work sample of a male or female applicant for a job that was either extremely male or moderately male in sextype. In addition, the applicant was depicted as either unequivocally high in performance ability or no information about his/her performance ability was provided. As expected, results indicated that unless information of high-performance ability was provided, women's competence and likely career success were undervalued relative to men's. Also as predicted, when given high-ability information, women seeking the moderately sextyped job or the extremely sextyped job were equally valued or overvalued, respectively. Gender-related work effectiveness characterizations closely paralleled these evaluations, lending support to the idea that sex stereotypes and the cognitive distortion they promote mediate not only gender consistent but also gender contrast biases in the evaluation of women. Implications of these results, both conceptual and practical, are discussed.     

Measures of job perceptions: Gender and age of current incumbents,suitability, and job attributes

Two ways of examining the gender and age stereotypes of jobs, characteristics of current incumbents and potential suitability, were compared. Female (n = 70) and male (n = 66) college students, predominantly Caucasian ranging in age from 18 to 57 years, provided their gender and age perceptions for 58 jobs. Although the two concepts have not been clearly distinguished in the literature, they are conceptually and (as found here) empirically distinct. The important roles of current incumbents, suitability, and job attribute perceptions for discrimination research are presented.     

Gender bias in employment contexts: A closer examination of the role incongruity principle

This research extends the role incongruity analysis of employment-related gender bias by investigating the role of dispositional and situational antecedents, specifically political ideology and the salience of cues to the traditional female gender role. The prediction that conservatives would show an anti-female candidate bias and liberals would show a pro-female bias when the traditional female gender role is salient was tested across three experimental studies. In Study 1, 126 participants evaluated a male or a female job applicant with thoughts of the traditional female gender role activated or not. Results showed that when the gender role is salient, political ideology moderates evaluations of the female candidates such that conservatives evaluate her negatively and liberals evaluate her positively. Study 2 (89 participants) replicated this effect and showed that this political ideology-based bias does not occur when the non-traditional female gender role is made salient. Study 2 also demonstrated that the observed effects are not driven by liberals' and conservatives' differing perceptions regarding the female applicant's qualifications for the job. Finally, Study 3 (159 participants) both replicated the political ideology-based evaluation bias for female candidates and demonstrated that this bias is mediated by conservatives' and liberals' attitudes toward the roles of women in society.     

Gender Hierarchy in the Space: The Role of Gender Status in Shaping the Spatial Agency Bias

According to the Spatial Agency Bias (SAB), more agentic groups (men) are envisioned to the left of less agentic groups (women). This research investigated the role of social status in shaping the spatial representation of gender couples. Participants were presented pairs consisting of one male and one female target who confirmed gender stereotypes. The status of the targets in each pair was systematically varied (high-status vs. low-status job). Participants chose the target order (female/male vs. male/female) they preferred. In line with gender-status expectations (male: high-status, female: low-status), a male in a high-status job led to a spatial arrangement that favored the male/female order, regardless of the status of the female target. The female/male order was favored only when the female had a high-status job and the male a low-status job. No SAB occurred for pairs in which both targets displayed low-status jobs. The implications of status for the SAB are discussed.     

Gender,influence tactics,and job characteristics preferences: New insights into salary determination

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether gender retains its significance as a predictor of salary, after controlling for the well-documented influences of human capital accumulation and job level, and the less well-researched effects of both influence tactics and job characteristic preferences. Second, this study investigates whether similar factors predict salary attainment for males and females. Finally, the question of whether males and females differ in all of the hypothesized variables of interest is investigated. Exempt staff at a state university are surveyed. Of those respondents, 52.8% are female and 47.2% are male, the majority of whom are white, with other ethnic and racial categories representing less than one-fifth of the sample. After controlling for all other hypothesized influences, gender retains its significance as a predictor of salary. A significant interaction between job level and gender indicates that females in high-level jobs earn significantly less than males in high level jobs. Human capital variables and two job characteristics preferences also displayed significant main effects in predicting salary.     

Workforce Segregation and the Gender Wage Gap: Is “Women's” Work Valued as Highly as “Men's”?1

This study focuses on gender segregation and its implications for the salaries assigned to male‐ and female‐typed jobs. We used a between‐subjects design to examine whether participants would assign different pay to 3 types of jobs wherein the actual responsibilities and duties carried out by men and women were the same, but the job was situated in either a traditionally masculine or traditionally feminine domain. We found pay differentials between jobs defined as “male” and “female,” which suggest that gender‐based discrimination, arising from occupational stereotyping and the devaluation of the work typically done by women, influences salary allocation. The ways in which the results fit with contemporary theorizing about sexism and with the shifting standards model ( Biernat, 1995, 2003 ) are discussed.     

Gender bias in caregiving professions: The role of perceived warmth

One hypothesized reason for why a disproportionately low number of men enter caregiving fields is how such men are perceived. In two studies, drawing upon the Stereotype Content Model and the lack‐of‐fit model, we tested whether men would encounter more social (e.g., likeability bias) and economic (e.g., hiring or job opportunity bias) penalties than women in caregiving professions due to perceptions that men are less warm than women. In all three studies, we created job or employment materials in which the gender of the candidate or employee was manipulated. In Study 1, a female preschool teacher received higher warmth ratings than a male preschool teacher, which in turn predicted preference for the female teacher over the male teacher. In Study 2, a female social worker was rated more highly in warmth and job hireability than a male social worker; warmth also mediated the relationships between gender and both likeability and job hireability. In Study 3, a male preschool teacher was rated lower in warmth, likeability, job hireability, and job suitability than both a female preschool teacher and a preschool teacher with an unspecified gender. There were no differences between perceived competence of men and women in caregiving positions when competence was assessed. Implications for the factors that predict adverse reactions to and penalties against men in caregiving occupations, as well as interventions to combat the potential negative effects of such penalties on men's interest in caregiving careers, are discussed.     

Wimpy and undeserving of respect: Penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success

Results of an experimental study varying the sex of the employee and the gender-type of the job demonstrated that men, as well as women, are penalized when they are successful in areas that imply that they have violated gender norms. But the nature of these penalties differed. When depicted as being successful at a female gender-typed job, men were characterized as more ineffectual and afforded less respect than women successful at the same job or than men successful in a gender-consistent position. Women, in contrast, were more interpersonally derogated and disliked when said to be successful at a male gender-typed job. Regardless of these differing characterizations, both men and women successful in gender-inconsistent jobs were reported to be less preferable as bosses than their more normatively consistent counterparts. These results suggest that success, when it violates gender norms, can be disadvantageous for both men and women, but in different ways.     

Gender Bias or Motherhood Disadvantage? Judgments of Blue Collar Mothers and Fathers in the Workplace

The effects of gender, marital, and parental status on judgments of applicants for a blue-collar job were examined. One hundred eighteen undergraduates (72 males, 46 females) at University of Kansas, USA first rated a standard “ideal worker” applicant (single male with no child), followed by a target applicant (who varied on gender, martial and parental status) for a factory worker position. Overall findings demonstrated straightforward gender bias: Female applicants were perceived as warmer, less self-confident, less committed, and most importantly, were less likely than men to be hired. Results suggest the possibility that blue-collar jobs trigger gender bias rather than the more nuanced bias against caregivers or a motherhood penalty.