A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making.

Abstract

Gender bias continues to be a concern in many work settings, leading researchers to identify factors that influence workplace decisions. In this study we examine several of these factors, using an organizing framework of sex distribution within jobs (including male- and female-dominated jobs as well as sex-balanced, or integrated, jobs). We conducted random effects meta-analyses including 136 independent effect sizes from experimental studies (N = 22,348) and examined the effects of decision-maker gender, amount and content of information available to the decision maker, type of evaluation, and motivation to make careful decisions on gender bias in organizational decisions. We also examined study characteristics such as type of participant, publication year, and study design. Our findings revealed that men were preferred for male-dominated jobs (i.e., gender-role congruity bias), whereas no strong preference for either gender was found for female-dominated or integrated jobs. Second, male raters exhibited greater gender-role congruity bias than did female raters for male-dominated jobs. Third, gender-role congruity bias did not consistently decrease when decision makers were provided with additional information about those they were rating, but gender-role congruity bias was reduced when information clearly indicated high competence of those being evaluated. Fourth, gender-role congruity bias did not differ between decisions that required comparisons among ratees and decisions made about individual ratees. Fifth, decision makers who were motivated to make careful decisions tended to exhibit less gender-role congruity bias for male-dominated jobs. Finally, for male-dominated jobs, experienced professionals showed smaller gender-role congruity bias than did undergraduates or working adults.

Stereotypes About Gender and Science

“…In contrast, the perceived similarity of scientific fields to men was unaffected by the proportion of men or women in those fields. Moreover, given the finding that people discriminate against women even in gender-neutral fields (Koch et al, 2015), it may be that women have to predominate in a field before people perceive them as having the same role congruity as men. As expected, the intraclass correlations were higher in Study 2 than in Study 1, and less stereotypical: Women were seen as similar to all six types of scientists.…”

“…Role incongruity has been used extensively to explain prejudice and discrimination against women in leadership roles (see Eagly & Koenig, 2008;Heilman, 2001). A relative lack of fit between stereotypes associated with women and stereotypes associated with successful leaders and other roles has been linked to gender discrimination in hiring (Koch et al, 2015), a devaluation of women's job performance (Heilman, 2001) and resistance to women's influence and agency (Carli, 2015) and negotiation attempts (Stuhlmacher & Linnabery, 2013). As incongruity between the female gender stereotype and the leadership role increases, the more difficulty women have as negotiators (Mazei et al, 2015) and the more prejudice they experience as leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002).…”

A sociocultural framework for understanding partner preferences of women and men: Integration of concepts and evidence

“…In addition, women do not ordinarily enjoy equal opportunity for more lucrative jobs or promotions because of male-dominated informational networks and other factors (see Addison, Ozturk, & Wang, 2014;Koch, D'Mello, & Sackett, 2015), and they face difficulties in attaining positions that grant organisational and political power (World Bank, 2012). Thus, because of several forms of disadvantage, women do not have the same economic resources as men do, regardless of national gender parity levels.…”

The effects of predictor method factors on selection outcomes: A modular approach to personnel selection procedures.

“…Cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988); media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984;Potosky, 2008); multiple resource theory of attention (Wickens, 1984); prejudice theories (Koch et al, 2015) Same validity for MC and written constructed knowledge test scores (Edwards & Arthur, 2007) Higher validity for webcam vs. written constructed interpersonal SJT scores (Funke & Schuler, 1998;Lievens, De Corte, & Westerveld, 2015) Higher This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.…”