Gender Differences in Recognition for Group Work

Sarsons, Heather; Gërxhani, Klarita; Reuben, Ernesto; Schram, Arthur

doi:10.1086/711401

Cited by 177 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, our study contributes to research on gender biases in academic careers. Systematic biases against women in letters of recommendation (Madera, Hebl, and Martin 2009;Schmader et al 2007;Trix and Psenka 2003), peer review (Van der Lee and Ellemers 2015; Wennerås and Wold 1997), hiring decisions (Moss-Racusin et al 2012;Rivera 2017;Steinpreis, Anders, and Ritzke 1999), attribution of intellectual contributions (Sarsons 2017), citations (Knobloch-Westerwick and Glynn 2013; Malinak, Powers, and Walter 2013), and collaboration opportunities (Knobloch-Westerwick, Glynn, and Huge 2013) keep levels of gender diversity among tenure-line faculty low in many fields. An established and growing body of work shows that teaching evaluations also contribute to gender inequalities within the profession (Abel and Meltzer 2007;Arbuckle and Williams 2003;Baldwin and Blattner 2003;Boring et al 2016;MacNell et al 2015;McPherson et al 2009;Mengel et al 2017;Sidanius and Crane 1989;Wagner et al 2016).…”

Section: Implications For Research On Faculty Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaling Down Inequality: Rating Scales, Gender Bias, and the Architecture of Evaluation

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative performance ratings are ubiquitous in modern organizations-from businesses to universities-yet there is substantial evidence of bias against women in such ratings. This study examines how gender inequalities in evaluations depend on the design of the tools used to judge merit. Exploiting a quasi-natural experiment at a large North American university, we found that the number of scale points used in faculty teaching evaluations-whether instructors were rated on a scale of 6 versus a scale of 10significantly affected the size of the gender gap in evaluations in the most male-dominated fields. A survey experiment, which presented all participants with an identical lecture transcript but randomly varied instructor gender and the number of scale points, replicated this finding and suggested that the number of scale points affects the extent to which gender stereotypes of brilliance are expressed in quantitative ratings. These results highlight how seemingly minor technical aspects of performance ratings can have a major effect on the evaluation of men and women. Our findings thus contribute to a growing body of work on organizational practices that reduce workplace inequalities and the sociological literature on how rating systems-rather than being neutral instrumentsshape the distribution of rewards in organizations. organizational practices that can reduce workplace inequalities (see Dobbin, Schrage, and Kalev 2015; Kalev, Dobbin, and Kelly 2006; Williams 2014) and by showing how the design of evaluation tools affects gender dynamics in organizations. GENDER INEQUALITIES IN PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS Performance evaluations are ubiquitous in contemporary organizations (Castilla 2008). Following the scientific turn in management and the emergence of human resources departments as a bureaucratic form, performance evaluations gained popularity as a means to increase efficiency, standardize comparisons between workers, and reduce bias (Dobbin et al. 2015). In the wake of equal opportunity legislation in employment, structured performance evaluations have also become important symbolic tools that organizations use to signal compliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws (Dobbin 2009; Edelman 2016). Within the broad category of performance evaluations, numeric ratings are among the most common (Murphy and Cleveland 1995). Despite their intended purpose as "objective" measures of worker performance, a substantial body of research shows systematic bias in performance evaluations against particular groups of workers, including women. Through numerous laboratory and field studies, scholars have shown that women tend to receive significantly lower performance ratings than men, even when their behaviors or skill levels are identical (for a review, see Heilman 2001). When assigning holistic assessments of overall worker quality, managers not only hold women to higher standards in terms of both competence and warmth relative to men (Biernat, Tocci, and Williams 2012; Foschi 1996; Lyness and Heilman 2006), b...

show abstract

Section: Implications For Research On Faculty Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaling Down Inequality: Rating Scales, Gender Bias, and the Architecture of Evaluation

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2019), Sarsons et al . (2020)) 6. Second, it could be that papers’ unobserved characteristics (for example, substantive relative to methodological contributions) differ by gender, and conferences’ referees value the characteristics of male‐authored papers more.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Gaps in the Evaluation of Research: Evidence from Submissions to Economics Conferences*

Hospido

Sanz

2020

Oxf Bull Econ Stat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These effects extend to impact job performance evaluations. In economics, where authorship order is usually alphabetical so that individual contributions are unclear, women-but not men-who co-author more are less likely to receive tenure due to biased credit attributions (Sarsons et al, 2021). Similar results are found in accounting (Wiedman, 2020).…”

Section: Gender Disparities In Mixed-gender Collaborationsmentioning

confidence: 64%

Gender disparities in middle authorship

Fleischmann

Berkel

2021

Soc. Psychol. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women increasingly occupy jobs in psychological research, but continue to face career barriers. One such barrier is fewer authorship and publication opportunities, with women often having fewer first authorships than men. In this research, we examine the overlooked role of middle authorship. Middle authorship contributes to various indices of productivity, while having lower costs. Study 1 looks at five years of authorship in two major journals in social and personality psychology. Study 2 examines publication records of all social psychology faculty in the Netherlands. Both studies find that women have fewer authorship possibilities: In Study 1, women were underrepresented as authors in academic journals, while women in Study 2 had shorter publication lists. More importantly, this tendency was exacerbated for middle authorship positions. Furthermore, the percentage of middle authorship publications were positively related to more publications overall. A focus on middle authorship highlights previously underestimated challenges women continue to face in psychological research.

show abstract

Gender Differences in Recognition for Group Work

Cited by 177 publications

References 28 publications

Scaling Down Inequality: Rating Scales, Gender Bias, and the Architecture of Evaluation

Scaling Down Inequality: Rating Scales, Gender Bias, and the Architecture of Evaluation

Gender Gaps in the Evaluation of Research: Evidence from Submissions to Economics Conferences*

Gender disparities in middle authorship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About