On winnowing: The impact of scarcity on allocators' evaluations of candidates for a resource |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. University of Waterloo Canada;2. University of Michigan USA;1. School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia;2. Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.;3. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, U.S.A.;4. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Ancon, Panama;5. Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, U.S.A.;6. Biology Department, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, U.S.A.;1. The Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Acton, Canberra, ACT, Australia;2. The Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent''s Park, London, U.K.;3. Division of Ecology and Evolution, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Berkshire, U.K.;4. Large Animal Research Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.;1. International Business School Suzhou, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China;2. School of Management, Shanghai University of International Business and Economics, China;3. School of Business, Changshu Institute of Technology, China;4. Economics and Management School, Shanghai Maritime University, China |
| |
| Abstract: | It was hypothesized that allocators unwittingly forge a relation between the availability of a resource and the worthiness of the applicants for that resource. In a simulation of an academic job search, graduate students were instructed to hire either 2 or 6 of 12 excellent candidates. Subjects spoke into a tape recordor reporting their initial reactions to each of the candidate's vitae, then made their hiring decisions, and rated the desirability of each of the candidates. Next, they were told they could now hire more of the applicants if they wished to do so. In a control condition, subjects were treated identically to experimental subjects in all aspects of the procedure but one—they did not anticipate and were not required to make hiring decisions. Instead, they rank ordered the applicants in terms of quality with the knowledge that “their department” wished to hire either 2 or 6 people. As hypothesized, subjects anticipating 2 appointments made fewer positive comments about the candidates on the audiotapes than did those anticipating 6 appointments; subjects in the experimental condition evaluated the candidates they hired more favorably than subjects in the control condition evaluated their own top-ranked candidates; subjects who were initially required to hire 2 candidates continued to employ fewer applicants than those who initially hired 6 when external hiring constraints were removed. The implications of the data for the review process in academic psychology journals were discussed. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
