A Prototype Matching Approach to Understanding the Role of Applicant Gender and Age in the Evaluation of Job Applicants¹

Abstract

This research uses a prototype matching approach to understand how job applicant evaluations are made and the role that applicant gender and age play in these evaluations. It is hypothesized that raters represent information about jobs and jobholders in person‐in‐job prototypes. Raters evaluate applicants by matching information about applicants to the person‐in‐job prototype associated with the job for which the applicant is applying. Person‐in‐job prototypes are comprised of features that are more (i.e., central) or less (i.e., peripheral) strongly associated with the prototype. Three laboratory studies examined several hypotheses derived from a prototype matching approach. Results indicated that applicants who matched on more central features were evaluated more favorably than applicants who matched on fewer central features of person‐in‐job prototypes. In addition, applicants who matched on age were evaluated more favorably than applicants who did not match on age when age was a central but not a peripheral feature of a person‐in‐job prototype. However, applicants who matched on gender were not evaluated differently from applicants who did not match on gender when gender was a central or a peripheral feature of a person‐in‐job prototype. Finally, there was some evidence that raters used applicant gender in a complex manner when evaluating applicants. Implications for theory and research on bias in selection are discussed.

Job and industry fit: the effects of age and gender matches on career progress outcomes

“…Consistent with the findings of Cleveland and Hollman (1991) and Perry (1994), our results for women suggest that matching the age-type of the industry results in more favorable career outcomes, whereas mismatching results in less favorable outcomes. Our findings indicate that age matching yields greater benefits for younger women than for older women and that mismatches result in less favorable outcomes for older women than for younger women.…”

“…Although there was an age  industry age-type effect subsumed in the three-way interaction, our results showed no age  job b age-type effects. This contrasts with several laboratory studies of selection (Cleveland & Hollman, 1991;Perry, 1994;Perry & Bourhis, 1998;Perry, Kulik, & Bourhis, 1996;Singer, 1987), which have found significant age  job age-type effects. Our failure to find effects may have been due to range restriction.…”

“…That is, a cognitive matching process occurs, whereby those who possess characteristics that are consistent with the prototypical job incumbent are evaluated more favorably than are those who lack such prototypical attributes. Several studies of age and gender in selection have provided support for the importance of the cognitive matching theoretical framework (Atwater & VanFleet, 1997;Glick, Zion, & Nelson, 1988;Perry, 1994;Perry & Bourhis, 1998), but previous selection research has been limited to laboratory settings with student participants. Cleveland and Shore (1992) found that target age and perceived age relative to the workgroup interacted to predict promotability and development measures in a field setting.…”

“…Thus, we predict that perceptions of both job and industry age-and gender-type are important moderators in the relationships between individuals' age and gender, respectively, and career progress outcomes. Perry (1994Perry ( , 1997 suggested that applicant age and job age-type and applicant gender and job gender-type interact such that better matches result in more favorable selection outcomes and poorer matches result in less favorable selection outcomes. That is, a cognitive matching process occurs, whereby those who possess characteristics that are consistent with the prototypical job incumbent are evaluated more favorably than are those who lack such prototypical attributes.…”

Overt employment discrimination in MNC affiliates: home-country cultural and institutional effects

“…There is an extensive body of literature dealing with the determinants of such distortion and bias in organizational decisionmaking (Amiot & Bourhis, 2005;De Corte, 1993;Dewberry, 2001;Hitt & Bar, 1989;Taylor, 1981), including both gender-based and age-based discrimination (Cleveland & Hollman, 1991;Davies & Thomas, 2000;Finkelstein, Burke, & Raju, 1995;Lawrence, 1996;Perry, 1994Perry, , 1997Perry, DavisBlake, & Kulik, 1994;Rutte & Messick, 1996). Culture is a primary mechanism by which beliefs, values, and perceptions are socially constructed (Fiske, 2000;Triandis, 1994).…”