Don't hate me because I'm beautiful: Anti-attractiveness bias in organizational evaluation and decision making

Within organizational judgment and decision making contexts, biases based on an evaluated person's attractiveness are among the most salient and frequently investigated. An enormous amount of research indicates favoritism for attractive people compared to unattractive ones. The current research demonstrates that the nature of this bias depends on whether one is evaluating a member of the same sex or the opposite sex. Experiment 1 (n = 2639) investigated selection of scholarship applicants and demonstrated that a pro-attractiveness bias held only for selection of opposite-sex scholarship applicants; no such bias was observed for highly attractive same-sex applicants. Experiment 2 (n = 622) investigated evaluations of prospective job candidates and demonstrated again that pro-attractiveness bias was observed only for opposite-sex candidates; participants discriminated against highly attractive same-sex candidates. Moreover, this bias was not observed among highly attractive participants; it held only for moderately attractive participants, those for whom highly attractive same-sex individuals can pose especially potent social threats. Findings suggest that attractiveness biases in organizational decision making are rooted partly in the social threats and opportunities afforded by attractive people.     

Authorship Decision Making: An Empirical Investigation

This empirical study concerns the authorship credit decision-making processes and outcomes that occur among coauthors in cases of multiauthored publications. The 2002 American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code offers standards for determining authorship order; however, little is known about how these decisions are made in actual practice. Results from a survey of 109 randomly selected authors indicated that most authors were satisfied with the decision-making process and outcome with few disagreements. Participants reported cases of both undeserved authorship being given and omission of deserving contributors' names as coauthors. Some factors associated with authorship decisions included “sense of loyalty or obligation,” “publish or perish pressures,” and “power differentials.” Authors who used APA standards were significantly more satisfied with both the process and outcome of authorship credit decisions.     

Decision-making competence in everyday life: The roles of general cognitive styles,decision-making styles and personality

Research indicates that decision-making competence in everyday life is associated with certain decision-making styles. The aims of this article are to extend this research by examining (a) the extent to which general cognitive styles explain variance in decision-making competence over and above decision-making styles, and (b) the extent to which personality explains variance in decision-making competence over and above both types of style variable. Participants (N = 355) completed measures of everyday decision-making competence (Decision Outcomes Inventory), decision styles (Decision Style Questionnaire; Maximization Inventory), cognitive styles (the Cognitive Styles Inventory; Rational-Experience Inventory), and the Big Five personality variables (IPIP Big-Five factor scales). The results indicate that cognitive styles offer no incremental validity over decision-making styles in predicting decision-making competence, but that personality does offer substantial incremental validity over general cognitive styles and decision-making styles. Jointly decision-making styles and personality account for a substantial amount of variance in everyday decision-making competence.     

El efecto del marco en diferentes contextes

Resumen

A pesar de la vasta investigación que ha generado el efecto del marco desde su definición en 1981 por Tversky y Kahnemann, pensamos que en ocasiones se han confundido los tipos de marcos estudiados. En este trabajo se revisa este efecto y se justifica empíricamente, con los datos de un meta-análisis previo, la distinción entre el marco de riesgo, el marco de atributo y el marco de objetivo. Los autores profundizan en cada uno de los tipos de marcos propuestos, y analizan las limitaciones conceptuales con el fin de aclarar la investigación en este campo.     

Stemming the tide: Predicting women engineers' intentions to leave

This investigation adapts and extends the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) by integrating it with central constructs from turnover theory. The extended model proposes that domain specific self-efficacy and outcome expectations predict job satisfaction and organizational commitment — the two key job attitudes that have been established as influential predictors of turnover cognitions and behaviors. Further, we proposed that one form of organizational supports, specifically developmental opportunities at work, are sources of self efficacy and outcome expectations, and that the relationship between organizational supports and job attitudes is mediated by self-efficacy and outcome expectations. The proposed model was tested on a national sample of 2,042 women engineers. Overall, the results provided support for our newly developed model. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.     

The Effects of the Structured Interview on Reducing Biases Against Pregnant Job Applicants

Some research has been conducted on the discrimination faced by pregnant women in the workplace. Few studies, however, have specifically investigated how this bias is manifested in employment or hiring decisions. The current study was designed to examine possible bias during structured interviews. Participants watched a videotaped scenario in which candidates were interviewed for a job. The 2 × 2 × 2 experimental conditions were varied to represent a structured or an unstructured interview, a pregnant or nonpregnant interviewee, and the open position of either a high school teacher or sales representative. Results indicate an overall bias against pregnant women and suggested that the structured interview reduces this bias.     

The distortion of criteria after decision-making

The results of two experiments indicate that decision-makers separately distort their interpretations of decision criteria and evaluations of information in a manner that justifies their decisions. In Study 1, participants reported a yes/no decision either before or after they rated the applicable decision criterion and problem information. Participants distorted their criterion and information ratings more when they reported their decisions before, rather than after, they rated the decision criterion and problem information. Study 2 demonstrated that distortion of decision criterion ratings occurred after a decision had been made whereas distortion of information evaluations occurred during the process of reaching a decision. These results are consistent with a two-stage model of decision-making in which the distortion of decision criteria is distinct from the distortion of decision information.     

Risk perception and risky choice: Situational, informational and dispositional effects

We investigated how situational (gain–loss), informational (opportunity–threat framing) and dispositional (achievement motive and avoidance motive) variables affected opportunity–threat perception and risky choice in managerial decision-making contexts. In Study 1, the risk preference of the participants showed a reflection effect due to situational differences (gain or loss) and a partial framing effect caused by presenting the same choice information in terms of either opportunities or threats. However, both effects were in the opposite direction of predictions from prospect theory. Gains and positive framing enhanced risk-seeking preference whereas losses and negative framing augmented risk-averse preference. Risk-seeking choices were mediated by opportunity perception whereas risk-averse choices were mediated by threat perception. In Study 2, the participants high in achievement motive perceived greater opportunities in a negative situation, and the participants high in avoidance motive perceived greater threats in a positive situation, suggesting that ambition (achievement motive) operates more significantly in the face of adversities whereas cautiousness (avoidance motive) functions more significantly in prosperity.