Side effects of gender‐fair language: How feminine job titles influence the evaluation of female applicants

In many languages, feminization has been used as a strategy to make language more gender‐fair, because masculine terms, even in a generic function, exhibit a male bias. Up to date, little is known about possible side effects of this language use, for example, in personnel selection. In three studies, conducted in Polish, we analyzed how a female applicant was evaluated in a recruitment process, depending on whether she was introduced with a feminine or masculine job title. To avoid influences from existing occupations and terms, we used fictitious job titles in Studies 1 and 2: diarolo?ka (feminine) and diarolog (masculine). In Study 3, we referred to existing occupations that varied in gender stereotypicality. In all studies, female applicants with a feminine job title were evaluated less favorably than both a male applicant (Study 1) and a female applicant with a masculine job title (Studies 1, 2, and 3). This effect was independent of the gender stereotypicality of the occupation (Study 3). Participants' political attitudes, however, moderated the effect: Conservatives devaluated female applicants with a feminine title more than liberals (Studies 2 and 3). Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A tool for thought! When comparative thinking reduces stereotyping effects

Stereotypes have pervasive, robust, and often unwanted effects on how people see and behave towards others. Undoing these effects has proven to be a daunting task. Two studies demonstrate that procedurally priming participants to engage in comparative thinking with a generalized focus on differences reduces behavioral and judgmental stereotyping effects. In Study 1, participants who were procedurally primed to focus on differences sat closer to a skinhead - a member of a negatively stereotyped group. In Study 2, participants primed on differences ascribed less gender stereotypic characteristics to a male and female target person. This suggests that comparative thinking with a focus on differences may be a simple cognitive tool to reduce the behavioral and judgmental effects of stereotyping.     

Changing stereotypes,changing grades: a longitudinal study of stereotyping during a college math course

Previous research has illuminated an important connection between stereotypes and the performance of those targeted by a stereotype. This body of work suggests that even implicit (i.e., nonconscious and unintended) math-gender stereotyping is related to poor math performance among women. Our longitudinal study sought to measure students’ math-gender stereotyping during a college math course and examine the relationship between changes in implicit stereotyping and course performance. Results showed that, for both male and female students, stereotypes increased during the course. Importantly, there was a significant interaction between gender and changes in implicit stereotyping when predicting course performance. Female students showed a negative relationship between changes in implicit stereotypes and course performance, while male students showed no relationship between changes in implicit stereotyping and course performance. This suggests that only for women, who are stereotyped as poor math performers, did the observed increases in stereotyping over time predict poorer math performance.     

The Influence of Applicant Communication Style and Interviewer Characteristics on Hiring Decisions1

This study examined the influence of the gender and communication style of job applicants, as well as the gender and sex-role stereotyping of interviewers, on hiring decisions. Fifty-six personnel officers viewed videotapes of simulated employment interviews, in which male and female candidates used either aggressive, assertive, or nonassertive styles of communication. Personnel officers rated job candidates on likeability, similarity to the officers themselves, and hireability. Interviewers were most likely to employ assertive applicants, and the sex-role stereotypes of interviewers did not influence their perceptions of these candidates. Sex-role beliefs, however, did affect evaluations of aggressive and nonassertive job applicants. Interviewers who were low in sex-role stereotyping were more likely to hire a nonassertive than an aggressive candidate, while interviewers with higher levels of sex-role stereotyping were more likely to hire aggressive candidates. For assertive candidates, judgments by the interviewers of the perceived similarity of the candidate to themselves and their liking for the applicant both influenced their decision to hire the candidate. For aggressive and nonassertive candidates, however, the interviewers' liking toward the candidate mediated the relationship between perceived similarity and hiring decisions.     

On the bounded rationality of gender stereotyping in fame judgments

The false‐fame effect is the phenomenon that familiar names are falsely judged famous more often than unfamiliar names. M.R. Banaji and A.G. Greenwald ( 1995 ) demonstrated a gender bias in the false‐fame effect: In line with existing gender stereotypes, the false‐fame effect was larger for male than for female names. A more general explanation for gender biasing in fame judgments is based on cognitive availability. Name gender could be used as an ecologically valid cue when making fame judgments. If the relevant universe of famous names contained more male than female names, a gender bias in fame judgments should be observed, if it contained more female names, the gender bias should be reversed. Indeed, this pattern could be demonstrated experimentally, and we argue that it is not compatible with an account that draws on gender stereotyping but with one based on cognitive availability. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality

Social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) contends that institutional-level mechanisms exist that reinforce and perpetuate existing group-based inequalities, but very few such mechanisms have been empirically demonstrated. We propose that gendered wording (i.e., masculine- and feminine-themed words, such as those associated with gender stereotypes) may be a heretofore unacknowledged, institutional-level mechanism of inequality maintenance. Employing both archival and experimental analyses, the present research demonstrates that gendered wording commonly employed in job recruitment materials can maintain gender inequality in traditionally male-dominated occupations. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated the existence of subtle but systematic wording differences within a randomly sampled set of job advertisements. Results indicated that job advertisements for male-dominated areas employed greater masculine wording (i.e., words associated with male stereotypes, such as leader, competitive, dominant) than advertisements within female-dominated areas. No difference in the presence of feminine wording (i.e., words associated with female stereotypes, such as support, understand, interpersonal) emerged across male- and female-dominated areas. Next, the consequences of highly masculine wording were tested across 3 experimental studies. When job advertisements were constructed to include more masculine than feminine wording, participants perceived more men within these occupations (Study 3), and importantly, women found these jobs less appealing (Studies 4 and 5). Results confirmed that perceptions of belongingness (but not perceived skills) mediated the effect of gendered wording on job appeal (Study 5). The function of gendered wording in maintaining traditional gender divisions, implications for gender parity, and theoretical models of inequality are discussed.     

Sex-role stereotyping in school superintendents' personnel decisions

In this study, school district superintendents were asked to make personnel decisions that involved potential domestic conflicts. Sex-role stereotypes or sex bias were reflected in the respondents' choices in the following situations: (1) A male was more likely than a female to be selected for a job requiring travel; (2) when an employee's spouse's job required a move, the superintendents were less likely to attempt to influence a female employee to remain and more likely to try to find a female spouse a local job; (3) a female who expressed family priorities over job responsibilities was less likely to be promoted than a male who expressed an identical commitment; (4) a male's request for a leave of absence for child care was considered more appropriate and was more likely to be approved with pay than a female's identical request. Lack of sex-role stereotyping was evidenced by the responses to a case involving the social support of an administrator's spouse and in the tendency to base an administrator's promotion on past performance.     

The Employment Interview: The Role of Sex Stereotypes in the Evaluation of Male and Female Job Applicants in the Netherlands1

This field study focused on the influence of sex stereotypes in the evaluation of male (N=38) and female (N=21) job applicants in the Netherlands. The employee selection process for higher-level technical and academic jobs in real life situations was studied, with special attention to the assessment of applicants by members of selection committees. It was demonstrated that, according to the job interviewers, the ideal applicant had more masculine than feminine traits. Males and females were regarded as having the same qualifications for the job, but because male applicants were assessed as having more masculine characteristics and female applicants more feminine characteristics, the male applicants were accepted more often. The job interviewers acted according to a fit model: The applicant most similar in traits to the ideal applicant was hired for each job.     

Mind-reading in strategic interaction: The impact of perceived similarity on projection and stereotyping

In social dilemmas, negotiations, and other forms of strategic interaction, mind-reading—intuiting another party’s preferences and intentions—has an important impact on an actor’s own behavior. In this paper, we present a model of how perceivers shift between social projection (using one’s own mental states to intuit a counterpart’s mental states) and stereotyping (using general assumptions about a group to intuit a counterpart’s mental states). Study 1 extends prior work on perceptual dilemmas in arms races, examining Americans’ perceptions of Chinese attitudes toward military escalation. Study 2 adapts a prisoner’s dilemma, pairing participants with outgroup targets. Study 3 employs an ultimatum game, asking male and female participants to make judgments about opposite sex partners. Study 4 manipulates perceived similarity as well as counterpart stereotype in a principal–agent context. Across the studies, we find evidence for our central prediction: higher levels of perceived similarity are associated with increased projection and reduced stereotyping.     

Determinants of Gender Essentialism in College Students

Psychological essentialism suggests that categories are stable, fixed at birth, and based on biological factors. The present paper examined some factors that encourage gender essentialism among US college students. In two studies (Study 1: 53 female, 22 male; Study 2: 55 female, 48 male), participants completed questionnaires assessing essentialist beliefs regarding a range of gendered concepts. They also completed several questionnaire measures of gender stereotyping and gender beliefs. Results revealed: (1) greater essentialism among men than women; (2) greater essentialism of masculine (vs. feminine) concepts, and; (3) for men, greater essentialism among those who report greater conformity to masculine norms. These data suggest that masculinity is more narrowly defined than femininity, not only in stereotyped beliefs but also in essentializing.     

Ambivalent Sexism and Applicant Evaluations: Effects on Ambiguous Applicants

The purpose of the current research was to evaluate how gender stereotypes and sexist attitudes affect responses to hypothetical job applicants. In Study 1 (N?=?93) undergraduate and graduate students in the Southwestern USA evaluated a male, female, or gender-ambiguous resume. They also completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick and Fiske 1996). Hypotheses were tested using ANOVA. Results suggested that participants who expressed more hostile sexist attitudes evaluated the gender-ambiguous applicant more negatively than a male or female applicant. In Study 2 (N?=?117), graduate and undergraduate participants were asked to indicate the gender of the ambiguous applicant. Those who scored high on hostile sexism, and perceived a gender-ambiguous applicant to be male, provided the most favorable evaluations.     

Social role effects on gender stereotyping in Germany and Japan

Social role theory postulates that gender stereotypes are restrained for men and women observed in the same social role. Cultural differences in the valuation of communal attributes might moderate this effect. To examine this possibility, 288 participants (144 German, 144 Japanese) estimated the communal and agentic attributes of an average man or woman described in a male‐dominated role, a female‐dominated role, or without role information. We hypothesized and found that in Germany and Japan, participants perceived men as more agentic than women without role information and as similarly agentic in the same role. However, for communion, German and Japanese participants reacted differently. German participants perceived women as more communal than men without role information and in male‐dominated roles and perceived men as more communal than women in female‐dominated roles. Japanese participants perceived all targets as similarly communal, regardless of role or gender, suggesting that communion is generally expected in Japan.     

The colour of gender stereotyping

Despite legislative attempts to eliminate gender stereotyping from society, the propensity to evaluate people on the basis of their sex remains a pernicious social problem. Noting the critical interplay between cultural and cognitive factors in the establishment of stereotypical beliefs, the current investigation explored the extent to which culturally transmitted colour-gender associations (i.e., pink is for girls, blue is for boys) set the stage for the automatic activation and expression of gender stereotypes. Across six experiments, the results demonstrated that (1) consumer choice for children's goods is dominated by gender-stereotyped colours (Experiment 1); (2) colour-based stereotypic associations guide young children's behaviour (Experiment 2); (3) colour-gender associations automatically activate associated stereotypes in adulthood (Experiments 3-5); and (4) colour-based stereotypic associations bias impressions of male and female targets (Experiment 6). These findings indicate that, despite prohibitions against stereotyping, seemingly innocuous societal practices may continue to promote this mode of thought.     

Evaluation of male and female applicants for sex-congruent and sex-incongruent jobs

The present study was designed to assess whether applicants for a sex-incongruent position would be evaluated less favorably by personnel administrators than applicants for a sex-congruent position. It was predicted that negative evaluations of sex-incongruent applicants would increase as a function of participants' reliance on sex-role stereotypes. Forty-four personnel administrators were asked to review the qualifications and evaluate one of four job applicants. Sex of the applicant and sex-orientation of the position were systematically varied. Participants were presented with credentials of a male or female applicant for a traditionally male- or female-oriented position. While results did not support Cohen and Bunker's contention that sex-incongruent job applicants would be viewed less favorably, the data did suggest that evaluations of the sex-incongruent applicants (especially the female applicant) varied as a function of sex-role stereotyping.The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided by Thom Hurlburt, Joan Van Tassel, and Amy Post.     

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.     

Not all stereotyping is created equal: differential consequences of thoughtful versus non-thoughtful stereotyping

Much research emphasizes heuristic use of stereotypes, though stereotypes have long been considered as capable of influencing more thoughtful processing of social information. Direct comparisons between thoughtful and non-thoughtful stereotyping are lacking in the literature. Recent research in attitude change emphasizes the different consequences of judgments arising from relatively thoughtful versus non-thoughtful processes. Therefore, increased thought could not only fail to decrease stereotyping but might also create stereotypic perceptions that are more likely to have lasting impact. The current studies demonstrate thoughtful and non-thoughtful stereotyping within the same setting. More thoughtful stereotyping is more resistant to future attempts at change and to warnings of possible bias. Implications are discussed for the typical research questions asked after observing stereotypic judgements.