Gender Bias in Leader Selection? Evidence from a Hiring Simulation Study

The present research investigated factors that might affect gender discrimination in a hiring simulation context from the perspectives of social role theory and the shifting standards model. Specifically, the experimental study investigated whether gender biases are evident in the screening and hiring stage of the personnel selection process depending on the applicants?? social role and evaluators?? gender. A sample of German undergraduate business students (54 women, 53 men) was asked to make a personnel selection decision (short-listing or hiring) about a fictitious applicant (man or woman) in a specific role (leader or non-leader) for a managerial position. Consistent with social role theory??s assumption that social role information is more influential than gender information, participants selected applicants described as leaders over applicants described as non-leaders, regardless of applicant gender. In addition, in the presence of role information, female applicants portrayed as leaders were similarly short-listed and hired as male applicants with the same credentials. In the absence of role information, female applicants were similarly short-listed as male applicants; however, male applicants were hired over female applicants, albeit by male participants only. This is consistent with the shifting standards model??s assumption that group members are held to a higher standard to confirm traits on which they are perceived to be deficient: Male participants hired female applicants portrayed as non-leaders with less certainty than their male counterparts possibly due to higher confirmatory standards for leadership ability in women than men. The research and practice implications of these results are discussed.     

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.     

The role of automatic obesity stereotypes in real hiring discrimination

This study examined whether automatic stereotypes captured by the implicit association test (IAT) can predict real hiring discrimination against the obese. In an unobtrusive field experiment, job applications were sent to a large number of real job vacancies. The applications were matched on credentials but differed with respect to the applicant's weight. Discriminatory behavior was quantified by the extent to which the hiring managers invited normal-weight versus obese applicants to a job interview. Several months after the behavioral data were obtained, the hiring managers completed an obesity IAT and explicit hiring preference measures. Only the IAT scores reliably predicted interview decisions. More specifically, hiring managers holding more negative automatic stereotypes about the obese were less likely to invite an obese applicant for an interview. The present research is the first to show that automatic bias predicts labor market discrimination against obese individuals. Practical implications are discussed.     

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.     

Double Jeopardy Upon Resumé Screening: When Achmed Is Less Employable Than Aïsha

Applicants belong to multiple categories (e.g., male, ethnic minority) and a complex set of factors affects category activation and inhibition when making hiring decisions. Two field experiments with recruiters who regularly engage in resumé screening showed that the role of multiple categories (applicants’ ethnicity and sex) in discrimination depended on job type and prejudice. Specifically, in both low‐ and high‐demand (i.e., complex) jobs, Arab women were rated more favorably than Arab men, particularly when considering levels of client contact. Across both studies, recruiters high in explicit ethnic prejudice were discriminatory only when applicants’ job qualifications fit the job position less, lending support for the attributional‐ambiguity effect. Implicit attitudes did not play a strong role. Our study findings point to the complex nature of multiple categorization effects in the hiring process. Implications are considered as to how to avert hiring discrimination during resumé screening.     

FORCED ATTENTION TO SPECIFIC APPLICANT QUALIFICATIONS: IMPACT ON PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS AND SEX OF APPLICANT BIASES

The effect of forced postponement of a hiring decision until after specific qualifications had been evaluated was examined as a procedure to reduce sex and physical attractiveness discrimination. Ninety six male and 148 female undergraduates evaluated the qualifications of an attractive, average, or unattractive male or female applicant. Ratings of specific qualifications preceded or followed an overall and hiring decision rating. Results indicated that the order variable influenced ratings of specific qualifications but not the overall or hiring decision. Sex of subject and attractiveness did affect the hiring decision with male and attractive applicants being preferred.     

Sexism and beautyism effects in selection as a function of self-monitoring level of decision maker

The authors, in two experiments, investigated the influence of the sex and attractiveness of applicants for male and female sex-typed jobs on selection decisions made by low and high self-monitors. In both experiments, attractiveness and the congruence between applicants' sex and the sex type of the job influenced selection decisions. In addition, high self-monitors were more influenced by attractiveness and sex of the applicant when hiring for sex-typed jobs than low self-monitors, but this difference in hiring pattern was not evident when the job was gender neutral. Results indicate that job applicants may encounter different employment opportunities as a function of their sex, their physical attractiveness, the sex type of the job, and the self-monitoring level of the decision maker. Implications of results are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.     

Speech style,gender stereotypes,and corporate success: What if women talk more like men?

This study tests competing socialization- and identity-based hypotheses concerning the impact of variations in speech style (powerful/powerless) on perceptions of male and female managerial job applicants. In addition, we investigate the effect of the gender of the observer on sensitivity to variation in speech style. Supportive of the socialization hypothesis, speech style has a significant effect on expectations of “success” and “acceptance” in a managerial position, as well as on attributions of situationally relevant traits regardless of the gender of the applicant. However, the identity perspective is supported by the finding that gender of the applicant affects perceptions of “liking” and attributions of gender-linked traits. We argue that the relevance of evaluative dimensions and traits for a particular context affects the impact of gender on the interpretation of actions. As predicted, female observers were more sensitive to variations in speech style. In fact, the effects of speech style on evaluations of applicants disappeared when only male responses were considered. The implications of these findings for equal opportunity in hiring and promotion are discussed.     

Affirmative Action Policies in Academic Job Advertisements: Do They Facilitate or Hinder Gender Discrimination in Hiring Processes for Professorships?

Evidence of female-favoring hiring preferences for assistant professorships suggests that universities can implement affirmative action programs successfully. However, research on the role of applicant gender and the actual use of affirmative action policies in hiring processes for high-level professorships remain scarce. A web-based experiment with 481 economic university members assessed whether evaluators perceived a female applicant as less qualified than a male applicant for an associate professorship position when the job advertisement highlighted the university’s commitment to affirmative action (gender-based preferential selection) but not when it solely highlighted its commitment to excellence (non-gender-based selection). Contrary to previous experimental findings that affirmative action would adversely affect female applicants, evaluators perceived the female applicant as more hirable and ranked her first for the job significantly more often than the male candidate. Furthermore, male evaluators had a stronger preference for the female candidate in the gender-based condition than in the non-gender-based condition and a stronger preference for the male candidate in the non-gender-based condition than in the gender-based condition. Overall, the results provide evidence that gender-based preferential selection policies can evoke their intended effect to bring highly qualified women to high-level professorships, especially when being evaluated by non-beneficiaries of these policies, such as men.

     

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.     

Age Discrimination in the Evaluation of Job Applicants

This study investigated the nature of age discrimination against older job applicants. One hundred fifty‐six participants (102 students; 54 organization based) evaluated a hypothetical job applicant's (aged 33–66 years) work‐related competences and likelihood of being hired. Applicant age affected hiring decisions for both samples where there was a preference for hiring applicants aged 42–48 years. Applicants at both the older and younger ends of the continuum were less likely to be hired, with the oldest applicants (over 54 years) being the least likely to be hired. Although the applicants' age negatively affected evaluations of their trainability and sociability, the effect of applicant age on hiring evaluations was not mediated by these work‐related competencies, suggesting that age discrimination occurs via direct bias against older workers.     

Stéréotypes de poids,jugement de valeur et de recrutabilité : les rôles modérateurs du sexe et de la personnalité

ObjectiveThe existing literature testifies to the presence of discrimination against obese people in hiring. The present study aimed to test the effects of candidates’ weight on value judgment and recruitability by taking into account their gender and personality. The study using the judges’ paradigm involved a sample of 279 recruiters. The recruiters were asked to judge eight fictitious CVs including a photo of the candidate, their education, their work experience and their answers to a personality test (proactive or reactive personality). The target job was a medical laboratory technician.ResultsAnalyses of variance revealed significant effects of applicants’ weight, and proactivity on judgements of agreeableness, effort, competence and recruitability. Indeed, obese people are discriminated against in hiring whereas proactivity would be a variable increasing the recruitability judgment. Moreover, the gender of applicants alone is no longer a variable that encourages discrimination.ConclusionThis study opens up a new field of research on proactivity as a social norm of judgement and corroborates previous studies on weight discrimination in personnel selection. The limitations of the study open up new avenues of research.     

When “decoy effect” meets gender bias: The role of choice set composition in hiring decisions

A large body of research has found evidence that hiring decisions are frequently subject to strong gender bias and has explored factors that help to predict and prevent such a bias from occurring. In this paper, we explore a novel factor that has received only little attention: the composition of the choice set. Drawing on prior research on the attraction effect of decoys in consumer choice and personnel decisions, we posit that when decision makers need to decide whether to hire a male or a female applicant for a stereotypically male position, the presence of a third applicant whose profile is asymmetrically dominated by one of the two applicants can in many circumstances strongly increase the odds that the male applicant will be selected, but will not be beneficial for the female applicant. We test our hypotheses in five experimental studies with different designs, experimental settings, and participant pools—including managers with professional experience in hiring decisions. Our results provide robust evidence demonstrating the strong effects of choice set composition on the emergence of gender bias. In addition, we found that the presence of asymmetrically dominated applicants makes decision makers more confident in their biased decisions and more likely to implement them immediately without searching for further information. Finally, our results also provide some initial evidence that our results for stereotypically male positions will be reversed when hiring decisions are made for stereotypically female positions where the presence of decoys instead gives an advantage to female over male applicants.     

Sex bias in hiring: Effects of job demands and applicant competence

Managers in a large corporation evaluated application materials representing one of eight hypothetical job candidates. In order to examine the effects of two types of information on sex bias, three factors were manipulated in a factorial design: (1) Applicants were either male or female engineers; (2) they appeared highly competent or moderately competent based on academic performance; (3) they were applying for an engineering job that entailed either technical engineering tasks or managerial tasks in addition to the technical tasks. Greater discrimination against women occurred in evaluations for the technical-managerial job, even with highly competent applicants. These results are explained in terms of ambiguity: Because it was not obvious that applicants would succeed on the additional managerial tasks, the evaluators resorted to stereotypes in order to make their predictions.     

Hiring Discrimination Against Arab Minorities: Interactions Between Prejudice and Job Characteristics

Individuals of Arab descent have increasingly experienced prejudice and employment discrimination. This study used the social identity paradigm to investigate whether greater Arab identification of applicants led to hiring discrimination and whether job characteristics and raters' prejudice moderated this effect. One hundred forty-one American and 153 Dutch participants rated résumés on job suitability. Résumés with Arab name and affiliations negatively influenced job suitability ratings, but only when job cognitive demands and external client contact were limited. Within the Dutch sample job suitability rating of Arab applicants was lowest when Dutch raters' implicit prejudice was high. As expected, no effects of explicit prejudice were found: discrimination may operate in subtle ways, depending on the combined effect of applicant, job, and rater characteristics. Further research and implications for employment-related decision making, such as anonymous résumé-sifting, are discussed.     

The effects of specifying job requirements and using explicit warnings to decrease sex discrimination in employment interviews

To determine the relative effectiveness of instructions designed to reduce sex discrimination in employment interviews, 96 students rated resumes for both a male and a female applicant. In one instructional condition subjects were told the specific requirements necessary for success on the job. In a second condition subjects were warned that it was illegal to discriminate on the applicant's sex. A third condition received both instructions, and a fourth received neither. Results revealed a series of interactions suggesting that the use of legal warning alone tended to increase the ratings of male applicants in some cases and influenced how male evaluators rated all applicants in other cases. The major implications were that legal warnings may actually bias ratings in favor of male applicants and may occasionally lead male evaluators to make lenient ratings. The specification of job requirements was suggested as a viable method of reducing discrimination.This work was supported in part by funds from the Foundation of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and from the State of North Carolina. The author wishes to thank P. S. Siegfried, J. Thomas Puglisi, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments and revisions of an earlier draft.     

A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job Applicants

Letters of recommendation are central to the hiring process. However, gender stereotypes could bias how recommenders describe female compared to male applicants. In the current study, text analysis software was used to examine 886 letters of recommendation written on behalf of 235 male and 42 female applicants for either a chemistry or biochemistry faculty position at a large U.S. research university. Results revealed more similarities than differences in letters written for male and female candidates. However, recommenders used significantly more standout adjectives to describe male as compared to female candidates. Letters containing more standout words also included more ability words and fewer grindstone words. Research is needed to explore how differences in language use affect perceivers’ evaluations of female candidates. This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant #1R01MH071749 to the first author and a University of Arizona grant from the College of Science Millennium Report Oversight Committee awarded to the third author.