Gender‐Based Biases in Occupational Hiring Decisions¹

Abstract

Two studies which investigated gender‐based decision making in an occupational setting are reported. Participants judged the suitability of a male or a female applicant with identical résumés for a male‐dominated or a female‐dominated position. In Study 1. where participants gave their own judgments of the suitability of the applicants for the positions, there was no evidence of gender‐based biases. In Study 2. participants were required to take the perspective of the applicant in providing their judgments of suitability. In this experiment, gender‐based biases were apparent, with a positive bias toward the male applicant. Results are discussed in terms of occupational stereotyping and subtle sexism.

Workforce Segregation and the Gender Wage Gap: Is “Women's” Work Valued as Highly as “Men's”?1

“…These contemporary forms of sexism are sometimes manifested as inconsistency when responding to gender‐related issues 5 . For example, the demonstration of professed attitudes toward women that are positive when asked directly, but gender‐biased when participants were allowed to answer from someone else's perspective has been taken as evidence of the operation of modern sexism (Harvie, Marshall‐McCaskey, & Johnston, 1998). In our study, individuals rated the work of women and men as equals in some respects (e.g., educational and skill requirements of “male” and “female” jobs), but nevertheless made decisions about value that indirectly hindered women; specifically, assigning lower pay to “female” jobs.…”

No Place for a Woman: Evidence for Gender Bias in Evaluations of Presidential Candidates

“…Thus, although more realistic, repeated-measure or survey studies that ask for comparison judgments between candidates render gender an obvious cue (Sigelman et al, 1986;Riggle et al, 1992). Instead, typical experimental between-participant studies do not ask for comparisons, and participants are given identical information to evaluate with only the gender manipulated, thus holding constant the qualifications and content of the (one) person being evaluated (e.g., Harvey, Marshall-McCaskey, & Johnston, 1998;Huddy & Terkoldsen, 1993b). For example, Zebrowitz, Tenenbaum, and Goldstein (1991) conclude that women applicants faced discrimination when applying for higher status jobs when all else was equal (see also Gallivan, 1991;Steinpreis, Anders, & Ritzke, 1999).…”

The Differential Effects of Extracurricular Activities on Attributions in Résumé Evaluation

“…While it cannot be assumed that all of the students participating in this study availed themselves of these services, it can likewise be assumed that the undergraduate sample is likely not naõÈ ve as to how re sume s are evaluated. In addition, students have frequently been used as a proxy for professional judgment in applicant screening (e.g., Harvie, Marshall-McCaskey and Johnston 1998;Perry and Bourhis 1998;Watkins and Johnston 2000). Furthermore, several studies have been conducted where job applicant attributions were examined for both students and professionals, often finding few differences between the perceptions of the respective groups (Bernstein, Hakel and Harlan 1975;Burnett, Fan, Motowidlo and Degroot 1998;Dickinson 1955).…”