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.